11272CU1

MAUDE Adverse Event Report

MAUDE data represents reports of adverse events involving medical devices. This maude entry was filed from a user facility report with the FDA on 2016-08-12 for 11272CU1 manufactured by Karl Storz Endovision.

Event Text Entries

[52058344] There were 2 scopes involved, but the user site could not determine which one was used on which patient; so we are providing evaluations for both scopes. Evaluation of scope w/sn (b)(4). The evaluation results for endoscope s/n (b)(4) concluded the primary damage to result from punctures in the proximal thread wrap, which lead to endoscope damage from a leak. Other notable observations included debris at the handle housing screw, debris at the distal window surface, debris at the distal head surface and vertebrae system, and elongation at 10 mm from the distal tip due to a master sheathing bond failure which included debris at the surface. The endoscope failed the leak test. Em evaluation of scope w/sn (b)(4). The evaluation results for endoscope s/n (b)(4) concluded the primary damage to result from a cut in the angle cover 5mm from the distal tip, which lead to endoscope damage from a leak. Other notable observations included debris at the housing surface, 3rd party repair at the shaft, debris on and inside the distal window, scrape marks with a lifted channel wall, a partially blocked channel, and debris at the shaft surface, distal head surface, and vertebrae system. The endoscope failed the leak test. Conclusion: evaluation of the karl storz flexible cystoscopes model 11272cu1, s/n (b)(4), showed significant signs of damage as well as visible debris in multiple locations. The use of a damaged endoscope during a procedure poses a risk to patient safety, including the possibility for infection. This is also true for residual debris left on an endoscope following reprocessing. Adhering to manufacturer's instructions for use is critical for ensuring that these risks are prevented. On-site evaluation of the reprocessing procedures at the facility showed practices that may not have prevented these risks and this was confirmed upon the evaluation by karl storz endovision. Since the channel is not visible to the naked eye, the account requested that we provide instructions to extract microorganism samples from the lumen so they could perform tests of the scope. We learned that the e-coli test result was negative. Although no contamination was confirmed, the complete investigation indicated that damaged endoscopes in conjunction with inadequate reprocessing could have contributed to the endoscope related infections.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10


[52058385] Allegedly, 3 patients were reported to have e-coli infections after use of cystoscope. This report represents patient #3. A urine culture confirmed the infection. The hospital states that the patients were treated with antibiotics and responded well.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5


[55336540] In the original mdr, we provided this evaluation on this scope: em evaluation of scope w/sn (b)(4) the evaluation results for endoscope s/n (b)(4) concluded the primary damage to result from a cut in the angle cover 5mm from the distal tip, which lead to endoscope damage from a leak. Other notable observations included debris at the housing surface, 3rd party repair at the shaft, debris on and inside the distal window, scrape marks with a lifted channel wall, a partially blocked channel, and debris at the shaft surface, distal head surface, and vertebrae system. The endoscope failed the leak test. After further review it was determined that there was no 3rd party repair done on this scope. Here is the correct evaluation with 3rd party statement removed: em evaluation of scope w/sn (b)(4) the evaluation results for endoscope s/n (b)(4) concluded the primary damage to result from a cut in the angle cover 5mm from the distal tip, which lead to endoscope damage from a leak. Other notable observations included debris at the housing surface, debris on and inside the distal window, scrape marks with a lifted channel wall, a partially blocked channel, and debris at the shaft surface, distal head surface, and vertebrae system. The endoscope failed the leak test.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10


[55336541] .
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5


MAUDE Entry Details

Report Number1221826-2016-00121
MDR Report Key5873811
Report SourceUSER FACILITY
Date Received2016-08-12
Date of Report2016-07-14
Date of Event2016-07-08
Date Mfgr Received2016-07-14
Device Manufacturer Date2010-01-29
Date Added to Maude2016-08-12
Event Key0
Report Source CodeManufacturer report
Manufacturer LinkY
Number of Patients in Event0
Adverse Event Flag3
Product Problem Flag3
Reprocessed and Reused Flag3
Health Professional3
Initial Report to FDA3
Report to FDA3
Event Location3
Manufacturer ContactMRS. SUSIE CHEN
Manufacturer Street2151 E. GRAND AVENUE
Manufacturer CityEL SEGUNDO CA 902455017
Manufacturer CountryUS
Manufacturer Postal902455017
Manufacturer Phone4242188201
Manufacturer G1KARL STORZ ENDOVISION
Manufacturer Street91 CARPENTER HILL ROAD
Manufacturer CityCHARLTON MA 01507
Manufacturer CountryUS
Manufacturer Postal Code01507
Single Use3
Previous Use Code3
Event Type3
Type of Report3

Device Details

Brand Name11272CU1
Generic NameCYSTOSCOPE
Product CodeFBO
Date Received2016-08-12
Returned To Mfg2016-07-22
Model Number11272CU1
Catalog Number11272CU1
OperatorPHYSICIAN
Device AvailabilityY
Device AgeDA
Device Eval'ed by MfgrY
Device Sequence No1
Device Event Key0
ManufacturerKARL STORZ ENDOVISION
Manufacturer Address91 CARPENTER HILL ROAD CHARLTON MA 01507 US 01507


Patients

Patient NumberTreatmentOutcomeDate
101. Other 2016-08-12

© 2024 FDA.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FDA.