Device evaluation: the biliary stent device of unknown rpn and lot number was not returned to cirl for evaluation.With the information provided, a document-based investigation was conducted.Lab evaluation: n/a.Document review: as the rpn, device name and lot number of the complaint device is unknown, a review of the relevant manufacturing records cannot be conducted.However, prior to distribution all cirl devices are subjected to functional checks and visual inspection to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl.It should be noted that the potential instructions for use state the following: ¿visually inspect with particular attention to kinks, bends and breaks.If an abnormality is detected that would prohibit proper working condition, do not use.Notify cook for return authorization¿.There is no evidence to suggest the user did not follow the ifu.Image review: n/a.Root cause review: a definitive root cause could not be determined from the available information.As the device is not to be returned for evaluation, it is difficult to ascertain a root cause based on the limited information.However, a possible root cause may be attributed to user technique and the method of stent advancement.It is possible that the stent may have been too rigid or that the device was damaged during preparation which led to it becoming stuck in the scope.Summary: failure identified: advancement difficult.Confirmed quantity of 1 device, used.Investigation findings conclude a non-definitive root cause of user technique.It is possible that the stent may have been too rigid or that the device was damaged during preparation which led to it becoming stuck in the scope.According to the initial report, this occurrence was prior to patient contact.The complaint is confirmed based on customer testimony.Complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|