An artegraft distributor was contacted by an end-user hosp requesting the return of an artegraft ag740, control # (b)(4).The end-user reported that he noticed a hole on the side of the graft during preparation.The ned-user also felt that the graft was 'harder' than usual.An alternate graft was used during the surgery.The end-user reported that there was no patient involvement, and the patient had a successful surgery.
|
The graft was returned to artegraft for further eval on (b)(4) 2014.The graft was evaluated and tested to identify the presence of any holes/wall defects and to observe the graft for an unusual feeling.The returned artegraft ag740 control #(b)(4) was opened and tested on (b)(6) 2014.The graft was pressurized under water using a syringe.A wall defect was visually noticed at that time.On june 10 2014 the returned artegraft ag740 control #(b)(4) was tested by a qualified artegraft mfg tech following the pressure test requirements in the artegraft processing specification, ps001.The wall defect was noticed during this test.The mfg tech determined that the defect was due to a small, unligated tributary that had been flattened and affixed to the outside wall of the graft.During the tanning chemical process, the small, flattened tributary became temporarily sealed to the side of the graft wall and passed initial pressure testing.The defect was also not detected during the visual inspection prior to final release.
|