Visual analysis was performed on the return device.The reported failure to advance and difficulty removing were not confirmed as it was related to procedural conditions.The stent damage and dislodgement were confirmed.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other incidents and/or complaints reported from this lot.It should be noted that the omnilink elite instruction for use (ifu) states: when treating multiple lesions, the distal lesion should be initially stented, followed by stenting of the proximal lesion.Stenting in this order obviates the need to cross the proximal stent in placement of the distal stent and reduces the chances for dislodging the proximal stent.Although it was reported that the omnilink elite stent delivery system was attempted to be advanced through an unspecified stent which likely contributed to the difficulties, it may be possible that lesion site was assessed after placement of the first stent and determined that the lesion required an additional stent to be placed distally.Based on the information provided, the reported difficulties appear to be due to circumstances of the procedure.It is likely that the reported failure to advance and stent damage were due to interaction with the previously implanted stent.Additionally, after the failed attempt to advance through the previously implanted stent, it is likely that the stent became damaged and compromised on the balloon such that during removal, the stent dislodged from the balloon.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|