An ophthalmic surgeon reported that five months following a glaucoma filtration device (gfd) implant procedure, it was suspected that the device was clogged.Also at the same time, part of the device started to expose out of the sclera to the conjunctiva.Since the patient's intraocular pressure (iop) was increasing, clogged shunt was suspected.Subsequently, another surgery was performed seven months following the initial procedure to remove the gfd and implant a glaucoma valve.Additional information was requested.
|
Product evaluation: sample was returned for investigation, including only the shunt and without other identification means.Unknown material was seen on the shunt's body and through the port opening and the shunt lumen was found blocked.Therefore, the reported complaint was confirmed.From previous experience the material blocking the device cannot be identified due to two main reasons: the sample is sterilized using gamma radiation which damages the material characteristics.The size of the device does not allow extraction of the material from within its lumen.After cleaning and cutting the shunt, openings on both sides of the restriction unit were seen and no welding penetrations were seen; therefore, there is no indication for manufacturing related factors that could cause the blockage.The device history record (dhr) for the batch was reviewed.No abnormalities were found during the dhr review and the product was released according to the manufacturer's release criteria.During production, 100% final inspection is being performed on the entire batch, including visual inspection and inner illumination.If a blockage would be noticed, the product would have been rejected immediately.Having said that, one may conclude that the blockage was formed after the product left the manufacturing plant.The root cause is inconclusive ¿ no root cause identified, as the blockage could have been caused by many different reasons during and after the clinical procedure.Since openings were seen on both sides of the restriction unit and no welding penetration were seen, there is no evidence for an inherent defect that might have caused the event.(b)(4).
|