Reportable based on device analysis completed on 15apr2015.It was reported that the coil was out of the introducer.A 22mm x 60cm interlock¿ was selected for use.During preparation, when the coil was pulled out from the protective hoop, it was noted that the coil and pusher wire had been completely pulled out from the introducer.The device was not used and the procedure was completed with another of the same device.There were no patient complications reported and the patient's condition was stable.However, device analysis revealed that the interlocking arm of the pusherwire had broken off.
|
(b)(4).An introducer sheath, pusher wire and coil were returned for analysis.A visual inspection was performed and the coil and pusher wire were not interlocked.The pusher wire was noted to be kinked and stretched.The interlocking arm of the pusher wire had broken off and was not returned.The coil was returned within the introducer sheath.A microscopic inspection was performed and the interlocking arm of the pusher wire was broken off.The interlocking arm of the coil was inspected and no damage noted.The coil zap tip was inspected and no damage noted.The dimensions that could be measured were found to be in specification.The manufacturing batch record review confirmed that the device met all material, assembly and performance specifications.The most probable root cause is operational context as device performance was limited due to anatomical procedural factors.(b)(4).
|