Visual analysis was performed on the returned device.The reported connection problem was unable to be confirmed due to the condition of the returned unit; however, the material separation was able to be confirmed as the nitinol tube was separated and the device was returned into two pieces¿which could be attributable to the reportable connection issue.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 similar complaints reported from this lot.The investigation determined that the reported connection issue and material separation were related to circumstances of the procedure.Based on the evaluation of the returned device, the observed optical fiber/nitinol tube break likely occurred from excessive bending of the strain relief during use¿which could contribute/cause to connection issues, however this could not be confirmed.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.D4: lot no and expiration date.H4: manufacturing date.H6 - health effect - impact code 2645 was removed.
|
Subsequent to the previously filed report, additional information was received.The device was returned with blood inside the device.The nitonol tube and opical fiber separated; there was no tip detachment.Follow-up with the account confirmed the initial information was reported incorrectly.The dragonfly optis catheter was inserted into the patient, but was removed from the doc because it could not connect to the system.It was the hub of the catheter that fractured outside of the patient.No additional information was provided.
|