Dhr review indicates that the product was supplied meeting specifications.Ifu review was preformed and no deviation from the ifu was reported.Conclusions of the final report of the complaint investigation: the review of the dhr (device history records), along with the information from the customer and the device analysis report indicate that the product was supplied meeting specifications.According to the device analysis, it may be assumed that the failure to cross, the broken shaft and the damage observed to the stent and tip evidently are the consequence of one or a combination of the common issues mentioned above and the use of excessive force, and are not related to medinol's manufacturing processes.There were no indications of any product anomalies or manufacturing issues.There was no injury to patient.No corrective action is required for this complaint.
|
Initial report from the distributer received on (b)(6) 2019 stated: "broken shaft, calcified, circumflex " and noted that the device problem occurred during use.Further information was received on june 10, 2019 from the distributor: the patient was (b)(6) years old, male.The damage noted while trying to get across a severe stenosis.The device used in the patient.The shaft had bent during the procedure and cracked outside the patient body the product was stored and handled according to the instructions for use.There wasn't any damage noted to the packaging of the device.There was no difficulty removing the products from the package.There wasn't any difficulty experienced in prepping the device.The device was not damaged in any way prior to insertion into the patient.There wasn't any difficulty inserting the device into the patient.There was difficulty crossing the lesion.The procedure was completed with a different brand.There wasn't any patient injury.The product was removed in one piece from the patient except for the mid shaft that was broken.
|