|
The patient was undergoing a coil embolization procedure in the splenic artery using a ruby coil.During the procedure, the ruby coil would not advance within its introducer sheath; therefore, it was removed.The procedure was completed using additional ruby coils.There was no report of an adverse effect to the patient.
|
|
Results: the pet lock was intact on the proximal end of the pusher assembly.The embolization coil was intact with its pusher assembly and had offset coil winds throughout its length.Coagulated blood inside was present on the embolization coil within the introducer sheath.Conclusions: evaluation of the returned ruby coil revealed that the embolization coil had offset coil winds inside the introducer sheath.If the ruby coil is forcefully manipulated against resistance, damage such as offset coil winds may occur.During the functional test, resistance was encountered while advancing the ruby coil out of its introducer sheath.However, the ruby coil was able to be advance out of its sheath.After re-sheathing the ruby coil, resistance was encountered while attempting to advance the ruby coil through a demonstration microcatheter, and the ruby coil could not be advanced any further.The offset coil winds may have contributed to the resistance encountered during procedure and the functional test.No other devices associated with the complaint were returned for evaluation, and therefore, the root cause of the initial resistance could not be determined.Further evaluation revealed coagulated blood within the introducer sheath.This damage was likely incidental to the reported complaint but may have contributed to the resistance during the functional test.Penumbra coils are visually inspected during in-process inspection and during quality inspection after manufacturing.The manufacturing records for this lot were reviewed and did not reveal any outstanding discrepancies, design, or quality concerns.H3 other text : placeholder.
|