MicroNesterRecalls & reported problems across all models
Cook Incorporated · 17 models in the FDA device registry
Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
1 open recall names at least one MicroNester model. Check whether yours is affected in the recall details, and contact the manufacturer or your healthcare provider.
- Adverse event reports
- 27
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 8
- Recalls
- 1
We found 17 models of MicroNester by Cook Incorporated in the FDA's device registry (GUDID). Together they are named in 27 adverse event reports in the FDA's MAUDE database, received between Aug 10, 2016 and Feb 6, 2026 — classified as 8 injuries, 19 malfunctions.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Difficult to Advance” (10 reports).
1 FDA recall record name at least one of these models by its device identifier, 1 still open.
Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event. Widely used products collect more reports, so totals can't be used to compare products or estimate failure rates. Only reports that name a model's exact device identifier are counted. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works
Reports received per month, all models
MicroNester recalls
FDA recall records that name at least one of these models by its device identifier, newest first. Each recall usually covers specific models or lots, so check the details.
- May 5, 2022Open, Classified
The loading cartridges included with these devices may contain a small, unintended, stainless-steel cannula.
Z-1241-2022 · Root cause: Under Investigation by firm · names 12 of these models · Recall details · FDA record ↗
Most reported MicroNester problems
Device problems
- Difficult to Advance10
- Entrapment of Device8
- Stretched5
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem4
- Material Separation3
- Unraveled Material3
- Failure to Advance2
- Break1
Patient problems
- No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions11
- No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient7
- Foreign Body Reaction4
- No Code Available2
- Device Embedded In Tissue or Plaque1
- Foreign Body In Patient1
- No Consequences Or Impact To Patient1
- No Patient Involvement1
MicroNester models
17 models, most reported first. Each model has its own page with its reports, recalls and device details.
- MicroNester G52731Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall2 reports
- MicroNester G52732Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall2 reports
- MicroNester G52734Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall1 report
- MicroNester G52737Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall1 report
- MicroNester G23520Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G23521Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52733Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52735Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52736Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52738Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52739Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G52741Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization1 recall0 reports
- MicroNester G26989Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization7 reports
- MicroNester G26988Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization6 reports
- MicroNester G26987Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization3 reports
- MicroNester G26990Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization3 reports
- MicroNester G26986Device, Vascular, for Promoting Embolization2 reports
Recent MicroNester adverse event reports
The 15 most recent reports across all models, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
MalfunctionFeb 6, 2026Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL WAS DIFFICULT TO DEPLOY DURING AN UNKNOWN COIL EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE FOR AN UNKNOWN PATIENT. RESISTANCE WAS FELT WITHIN THE CATHETER UPON ATTEMPTED ADVANCEMENT OF THE COIL WITH THE PUSHER. AS A RESULT, THE COIL BECAME LODGED WITHIN THE CATHETER AND WAS NOT ABLE TO BE DEPLOYED AS INTENDED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED 29JAN2026, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE COIL EXITED THE DISTAL TIP OF THE CATHETER, THUS, PROMPTING THIS REPORT. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 24282835 ↗MalfunctionFeb 4, 2026Unraveled Material
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL WAS DEFECTIVE. AN ADDITIONAL COIL WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ARTERY EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE. UPON INITIAL INSPECTION OF THE RETURNED DEVICE, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE COIL WAS UNRAVELED, THUS PROMPTING THIS REPORT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 24260287 ↗MalfunctionJun 25, 2025Difficult to Advance; Difficult to Advance
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL WAS DIFFICULT TO ADVANCE. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE COIL WAS LOADED INTO THE MICROCATHETER AND PUSHED WITH A WIRE GUIDE TO END OF THE CATHETER WHERE IT PARTIALLY EXITED THE DISTAL TIP BUT BECAME STUCK. MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO DEPLOY THE COIL FROM THE CATHETER WERE MADE BUT RESISTANCE WAS ENCOUNTERED. EVENTUALLY THE WIRE GUIDE BECAME STUCK AND COULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE CATHETER. A RESULT, THE CATHETER, WIRE GUIDE, AND COIL WERE REMOVED, AND THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITH NEW PRODUCT. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CATHETER WAS FLUSHED PRIOR TO EACH COIL DEPLOYMENT. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 22330826 ↗MalfunctionJan 9, 2025Material Separation; Unraveled Material; Material Separation; Unraveled Material
IT WAS REPORTED A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL SEPARATED AND DEPLOYED TO AN INCORRECT LOCATION DURING AN EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE ON AN UNKNOWN PATIENT. THE ENTIRE COIL BECAME STUCK AND SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS WITHIN THE MICROCATHETER. ONE LINEAR PORTION OF THE COIL DEPLOYED IN THE TARGET VESSEL, AND THE SECOND PORTION DEPLOYED WITHIN THE AORTA DUE TO THE LOSS OF COIL PUSHABILITY. THE DEPLOYED TWO PART COIL WAS REMOVED FROM THE PATIENT WITH A SNARE. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED USING THE SAME MICROCATHETER AND THREE SIMILAR COOK NESTER MICROCOILS. THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 21112749 ↗MalfunctionJan 2, 2025Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance
NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PATIENT AND/OR EVENT DETAILS HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEDWATCH REPORT WAS SENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 21058787 ↗MalfunctionJan 2, 2025Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance
THE DEVICE WAS REQUIRED FOR COILING OF A RENAL PSEUDOANEURYSM.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 21058433 ↗MalfunctionOct 24, 2024Separation Failure; Difficult to Advance; Separation Failure; Difficult to Advance
IT WAS REPORTED THAT A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL WAS DIFFICULT TO DEPLOY DURING AN EMBOLIZATION OF AN ABDOMINAL ARTERY IN A PATIENT OF UNKNOWN AGE AND GENDER. THE DOCTOR USED A PUSHER STYLET TO ADVANCE THE COIL INTO A MICROCATHETER. SUBSEQUENTLY, A 0.016-INCH GUIDEWIRE WAS USED TO FURTHER PUSH THE COIL TO THE TARGET LESION. RESISTANCE WAS ENCOUNTERED WHILE ADVANCING; HOWEVER, THE COIL AND WIRE WERE STILL ABLE TO ADVANCE. FOLLOWING ATTEMPTED DEPLOYMENT OF THE COIL FROM MICROCATHETER TIP, THE WIRE WAS WITHDRAWN. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COIL AND WIRE WERE STUCK TOGETHER, RESULTING IN REMOVAL OF THE ENTIRE DEVICE INCLUDING MICROCATHETER, GUIDEWIRE AND THE COIL FROM THE PATIENT. ALTERNATIVE COOK COILS WERE USED TO COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE, AND THEY WERE FUNCTIONING WELL. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE. IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE USER THAT THE CATHETER WAS FLUSHED PRIOR TO EACH COIL DEPLOYMENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 20523970 ↗MalfunctionJun 26, 2024Difficult to Advance; Difficult to Advance
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ON 24JUL2024. THE COIL DID NOT EXIT THE MICROCATHETER FULLY. APPROXIMATELY 1 CM OF THE COIL REMAINED IN THE CATHETER. THE CLINICIAN WAS NOT ABLE TO DEPLOY THE COIL COMPLETELY. WHEN THE CLINICIAN WITHDREW THE WIRE, THE COIL PULLED BACK INTO THE CATHETER AT THE SAME TIME. THE CLINICIAN REMOVED THE CATHETER AND COIL TOGETHER.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 19617106 ↗MalfunctionMar 12, 2024Device Contaminated During Manufacture or Shipping; Device Contaminated During Manufacture or Shipping
NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PATIENT AND/OR EVENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEDWATCH REPORT WAS SENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 18888302 ↗InjuryFeb 7, 2023Entrapment of Device; Material Separation; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Material Separation; Difficult to Advance
IT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE CUSTOMER, IT WAS REPORTED THAT A SIZE 2.7 FR MICROCATHETER WAS USED AND WAS FLUSHED PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT OF COIL. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE COIL PARTIALLY DEPLOYED INTO THE INTENDED TARGET AREA, SEPARATED, AND REQUIRED A SNARE FOR REMOVAL. NO OTHER ADVERSE EFFECTS WERE REPORTED FOR THIS INCIDENT.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 16313708 ↗MalfunctionApr 13, 2022Stretched; Failure to Advance; Stretched; Failure to Advance
IT WAS REPORTED A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL WAS DIFFICULT TO ADVANCE AND STRETCHED. THE COIL WAS BEING USED TO EMBOLIZE A SPLENIC ARTERY ANEURYSM IN A PATIENT WITH VERY TORTUOUS ANATOMY. THE COIL WAS LOADED WITHOUT DIFFICULTY AND ADVANCED THROUGH A 2.7 FR MICROCATHETER. DURING ADVANCEMENT, RESISTANCE WAS NOTED. THE COIL WOULD NOT ADVANCE PASSED A "TIGHT FLEXION POINT" IN THE PATIENT'S ANATOMY AND AT THE HOOK OF A COAXIAL CATHETER. WHEN THE WIRE WAS REMOVED, THE COIL CAME BACK TO THE HUB WITH THE WIRE. THE PHYSICIAN THEN TRIED TO ADVANCE THE COIL AGAIN WITH A DIFFERENT WIRE. THE COIL WAS NOTED TO LOOK STRETCHED UNDER FLUOROSCOPY. THE COIL WAS EVENTUALLY ABLE TO BE DEPLOYED USING A SALINE FLUSH AND THE CASE WAS COMPLETED WITH NO ISSUES. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES.
Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions
MAUDE report 14106398 ↗InjuryJan 13, 2021Stretched; Patient Device Interaction Problem; Stretched; Patient Device Interaction Problem
IT WAS REPORTED AN UNKNOWN PATIENT REQUIRED A NESTER PLATINUM EMBOLIZATION MICROCOIL FOR PERCUTANEOUS TRANS-HEPATIC PORTAL VEIN EMBOLIZATION. NO TORTUOSITY WAS OBSERVED. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE COIL "WOULD NOT COIL PROPERLY". THE COIL WAS RETRIEVED WITH A SNARE DEVICE, AND DURING THE RETRIEVAL, THE COIL UNRAVELED. THE ENTIRE COIL WAS RETRIEVED, AND THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT PLACING AN ADDITIONAL COIL. AS REPORTED, THE PATIENT DID NOT EXPERIENCE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS OR REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES DUE TO THIS OCCURRENCE.
Patient problems: No Code Available
MAUDE report 11162499 ↗MalfunctionSep 24, 2020Entrapment of Device; Material Separation; Stretched; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Material Separation; Stretched; Difficult to Advance
NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PATIENT AND/OR EVENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEDWATCH REPORT WAS SENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 10583440 ↗MalfunctionJun 18, 2020Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance
NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PATIENT AND/OR EVENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEDWATCH REPORT WAS SENT.
Patient problems: No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient
MAUDE report 10168148 ↗InjuryApr 14, 2020Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance; Entrapment of Device; Difficult to Advance
NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PATIENT AND/OR EVENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED SINCE THE PREVIOUS MEDWATCH REPORT WAS SENT.
Patient problems: Foreign Body In Patient; No Code Available
MAUDE report 9957848 ↗
Other Cook Incorporated products
All Cook Incorporated devices →Sources and updates
- Models: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026. Models are grouped by the brand name the manufacturer registered.
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 16, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page