H4 manufacturing date ¿ added; h3 device evaluated by mfg ¿updated; h3 summary attached - updated; d4 expiration date - added; d10 product available to stryker ¿ updated; d10 returned to manufacturer on ¿updated.The device was returned and was confirmed to be a trevo xp provue retriever.During visual inspection, after decontamination the trevo xp provue device was examined and it was observed that the trevo xp provue retriever was not attached to the returned unit.The device core wire and shaft coil were examined.The shaft coil was kinked and stretched and the core wire was broken.Sem imaging of the fractured core wire was performed with feedback from r&d and the fracture location was confirmed at the round-to-flat transition area on core wire.The fracture surface was observed to have a "two-zone" fracture; where both brittle fracture and ductile fracture regions are present.Fracture was low cycle fatigue (fatigue crack initiated at one side of the surface) with ductile overload failure.Approximately 85% of the fracture was due to ductile overload failure (fast fracture).It was also noted that there was significant contamination on the fracture surface (dark spots), which is likely dried procedural fluids.Functional inspection testing was not performed due to the condition the device was received.From the condition of the product it appears that the product had been under excessive manipulation.Due to the automated mes system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.The reported event is covered in the device directions for use (dfu).As well, the risk of the reported event is documented in the risk documentation and there are current controls to mitigate the risk of the as reported event.Additional information was received indicating that the device was prepared as per the dfu, no anomalies noted to the device after removal from the packaging or prior to preparation, and continuous flush was maintained throughout the procedure.Based on the information provided, it is most likely that the device became dislodged from the device itself due to anatomical or procedural factors encountered during the procedure.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the complaint, as this issue appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use.This complaint has been identified to be within the scope of nc# 2425934, which was raised for core wire fracture.The subsequent investigation of this nc led to containment and recall per hhe# 2430533.
|