Block h6 (impact codes): impact code f1001 is being used to capture the reportable event of aborted/cancelled procedure.Block h10: the returned spyscope ds ii was analyzed, and a visual evaluation noted that there were no elevator marks on the shaft of the catheter.No damage was noted.Witness marks were observed on the contacts of the umbilicus connector, indicating it was connected to a controller.An image assessment for visualization was performed.The device was plugged into the controller.A live, clear image was displayed.No problems were identified with the image.No problems were observed with physical connectivity of the device.The umbilicus connector was visually inspected and no damage or defects were noted.The lighting controls on the controller were tested and the scope lighting adjusted accordingly, no problems were observed with scope lighting or plastic optical fibers (pofs).The device was fully articulated in all directions; no problems were identified with the image.X-ray imaging of the distal tip showed no problems with the redistribution layer (rdl), thru-silicon vias (tsvs), or camera wire.X-ray imaging of the handle showed no problems with the printed circuit board assembly (pcba) or camera wires.The handle was opened and the connection of the camera wires to the pcba was inspected.No damage or defect was noted on the bond between the solder pads and the camera wires.The glue feature was wiggled with tweezers to test the solder bond of the wires, and no change to the image was noted.Pressure was applied to the ground pad on the pcba using a screwdriver, and no flex was observed on the pcba.It appeared fully bonded to the breakout and no components on the board appeared damaged.The camera wire in the breakout region was visually inspected.No damage was noted to the camera wire or jacket.Signs of procedural residue were present inside the handle, indicating procedural fluids had flowed back up the optics lumen into the handle during use.The tip was blocked and saline was flushed through the irrigation tubing to induce backflow of saline into the optics lumen.No change to the image was observed during this testing.The reported event was not confirmed.Product analysis was unable to replicate reported visualization problems.A review of the risk documentation confirms that the failure is not a new or unanticipated event.The risk documentation lists that the reported event can be caused by damage to the electronic components, fluid leaks, tip damage, or cross-talk between electronics.The design failure modes and effects analysis (dfmea) lists mitigations in place that control design features through specification and manufacturing inspection, and therefore it is unlikely a problem with the design of the device.A device history record (dhr) confirms the device met all manufacturing specifications, and therefore there is unlikely a problem related to manufacturing.Based on all gathered information, the investigation concluded that the most probable root cause of this complaint is no problem detected.A review of the manufacturing documentation for this device revealed that no anomalies or deviations related to the event occurred during manufacturing.A search of the complaint database confirmed that no similar complaint exist for the specified lot.A labeling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the instructions for use (ifu) / product label.Block h11: correction - block h6 (impact code and device code) has been corrected.
|