A facility reported a perforator reached the patient's dura triggering the safety mechanism.After that, the perforator could not be removed from the patient's skull.Therefore, the perforator had to be removed with drill and the event led to 20 minutes surgical delay."the dura has been opened with the perforator.This did not injure the patient, since the dura had to be opened during the operation anyway.".
|
Dhr - there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications.Failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.Unit was heavily soiled, had a destroyed label, and showed significant tooling marks.The sleeve holding the unit together was deformed and shifted down exposing the pin.Ifu testing was performed after moving the blue sleeve back into the proper position and performed as expected.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release; the unit was found to perform as intended, however one thing noted is that the unit was pulling apart due to the deformed sleeve.The unit was re-sleeved and performed as expected for another round of the functional testing.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit was found to work as intended, and met all acceptance criteria.The complaint could not be verified through failure analysis.The root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.Potential root cause for this complaint is user misuse as the device functioned as intended upon failure analysis testing.
|