Skip to content

Interlock™ M001361630Recalls & reported problems

Boston Scientific Corporation · Fibered IDC™ Occlusion System · Class 2 · Implant

All models of Interlock (26)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
3
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 3 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 08714729765066), received between Dec 13, 2018 and Nov 22, 2024 — classified as 3 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Premature Activation” (2 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 16, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 1 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Premature Activation2
  • Entrapment of Device1
  • Failure to Advance1

Patient problems

  • No Consequences Or Impact To Patient2
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions1

Recent adverse event reports

The 3 most recent of 3 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionNov 22, 2024Premature Activation; Failure to Advance; Premature Activation; Failure to Advance

    REPORTABLE BASED ON DEVICE ANALYSIS COMPLETED ON 30OCT2024. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE COIL PREMATURELY DEPLOYED INSIDE THE CATHETER. A 14MM X 20CM INTERLOCK WAS SELECTED FOR USE IN A SPLENIC ARTERY EMBOLIZATION. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE INTERLOCKING ARM DISENGAGED PREMATURELY INSIDE THE STC-18 MICROCATHETER AND COULD NOT BE PUSHED FORWARD. THE WHOLE DELIVERY SYSTEM WAS WITHDRAWN TOGETHER WITH THE COIL, AND THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH ANOTHER OF THE SAME DEVICE. NO COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED, AND THE PATIENT WAS STABLE POST PROCEDURE. HOWEVER, DEVICE ANALYSIS REVEALED THAT THE MAIN COIL WAS DETACHED FROM THE ARM OF THE COIL.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 20758967 ↗
  • MalfunctionNov 11, 2020Entrapment of Device; Entrapment of Device

    REPORTABLE BASED ON DEVICE ANALYSIS COMPLETED ON 23OCT2020. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE COIL STUCK IN THE CATHETER. A 14MMX20CM INTERLOCK WAS SELECTED FOR USE IN A BRONCHIAL ARTERY EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE. DURING PROCEDURE, THE COIL WAS DEPLOYED BUT IT GOT STUCK. THE MICROCATHETER WAS THEN RETRIEVED. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH A ANOTHER OF THE SAME DEVICE. NO COMPLICATIONS REPORTED AND PATIENT WAS STABLE POST PROCEDURE. HOWEVER, DEVICE ANALYSIS REVEALED DETACHED INTERLOCKING ARM AND MISSING FIBER BUNDLES.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 10825137 ↗
  • MalfunctionDec 13, 2018Premature Activation; Premature Activation

    REPORTABLE BASED ON DEVICE ANALYSIS COMPLETED ON 22-NOV-2018. IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE COIL UNLOCKED INSIDE THE MICROCATHETER. THE TARGET LESION WAS LOCATED IN THE SPLENIC ARTERY. A 14MMX20CM INTERLOCK COIL WAS SELECTED FOR USE. DURING THE PROCEDURE, AFTER THE PHYSICIAN RETRIEVED THE COIL FOR REPOSITIONING, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE COIL UNLOCKED INSIDE THE MICROCATHETER. THE COIL WAS REMOVED WITH THE CATHETER. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED. NO PATIENT COMPLICATIONS WERE REPORTED AND THE PATIENT'S STATUS POST-PROCEDURE WAS STABLE. HOWEVER; RETURNED DEVICE ANALYSIS REVEALED THAT THE INTERLOCKING ARM WAS NOT RETURNED SINCE IT IS DETACHED FROM THE PUSHER WIRE. DEVICE EVALUATED BY MANUFACTURER: THE DEVICE WAS RETURNED FOR ANALYSIS. A PUSHER WIRE AND AN INTRODUCER SHEATH WERE RETURNED FOR THIS COMPLAINT. THE COIL WAS NOT RETURNED. THE TWIST LOCK OF THE INTRODUCER SHEATH HAD BEEN OPENED. THE INTRODUCER SHEATH WAS INSPECTED AND NO ANOMALIES WERE NOTED. THE PUSHER WIRE WAS INSPECTED AND WAS FOUND BROKEN AND STRETCHED NEAR THE DISTAL END. MICROSCOPIC INSPECTION OF THE PUSHER WIRE REVEALED THAT THE PROXIMAL END HAS A SMOOTH SURFACE. THE INTERLOCKING ARM WAS NOT RETURNED SINCE IT IS DETACHED FROM T

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 8160235 ↗

Other Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization devices

All Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page