Investigation summary: with all the available information, boston scientific concludes as no further information regarding this event is expected, our investigation is complete.This report will be updated should additional information be provided.Device technical analysis: the tactra cylinders were visually inspected and functionally tested.Sharp instrument damage consistent with explant damage was present on one cylinder.This damage is considered a secondary failure and is not the cause of the complaint.Both cylinders passed all bend tests with force readouts of less than 4.50 lbs.Both cylinders passed all position tests with force readouts of less than 1.90 lbs.Both cylinders had a compliance value between 0.019 and 0.720 mm/n, (0.0033 and 0.126 in/lb) when a load was applied across the diameter to the distal (non-tapered) portion of the device.Both cylinders' distal tips and rear tip extenders had a compliance value between 0.019 and 0.720 mm/n, (0.0033 and 0.126 in/lb) when a load was applied axially.Product analysis therefore confirmed there was not a device malfunction with the cylinders; the cylinders performed within specification.An investigation conclusion code of no problem detected was chosen as no malfunction was found due to a design or manufacturing issue.Device history record review: a review of the device history record (dhr) was performed.The review of the dhr identified that there were no process related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during the production that could explain the event.The reviews ensure each device meets specification prior to release for use.There is no indication the device manufacturing process contributed to the reported complaint.Risk review: a review of the tactra hazard analysis was completed and confirmed that the event was defined in the risk documentation.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Labeling review: there is no objective evidence that the user did not properly handle or use the device according to device labeling.The manual was unlikely to be the cause of the reported complaint.
|