Block e1 initial reporter address 1: (b)(6) block h6 (impact codes): imdrf 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 elevator marks on the shaft of the catheter.An image assessment for visualization was performed.Upon plugging the device into the controller, a live image was not displayed.Articulation of the catheter working length using the steering wires at the handle had no effect in restoring an image.X-ray imaging of the distal tip showed no problems with the redistribution layer (rdl).X-ray imaging inside the distal cap showed no camera wire damage.X-ray assessment of the pebax region proximal to the distal cap shows damage to the camera wires in the form of a break and potential corrosion.No camera wire damage was observed in the pebax region of the catheter proximal to the working channel sleeve.X-ray imaging of the handle showed no problems with the breakout region or camera wires around the strain relief.X-ray imaging shows no damage to the camera wires at the printed circuit board assembly (pcba).The handle was opened and the electrical components inside were inspected visually.There was no procedural residue seen in the plastic optic fibers (pof).Visual assessment showed no problems with the camera wires in the glue feature.The bond of the glue feature to the pcba was inspected; tweezers were used to wiggle the glue feature.The connection of the camera wires to the pcba was also inspected by slightly lifting the bottom of the glue feature for each of the four camera wires using the tip of the tweezers.No impact to image was seen after these interactions.A leak test was conducted to determine if a leak path into the optics lumen was present based on the reported loss of visualization.The device was pressurized by injecting fluid through the irrigation port of the device while the distal end was inserted into a mock common bile duct (cbd) fixture.Pressure readings were recorded using a pressure gage and the device was pressurized until a reading was displayed on the gage.A drop in pressure was not seen after fluid was injected; a leak was not detected.The distal cap of the catheter was pulled on to reveal the camera wires at the distal end.Visual inspection of the camera wires confirmed the presence of damage in the form of nicked camera wire insulation, break in camera wire conductor and potential corrosion of camera wires.The reported complaint was confirmed.During product analysis, the x-ray assessment of the distal tip noted potential camera wire damage in the form of a fold and potential corrosion.Initial insertion of the device into the controller did not yield a live image.Visual inspection of the camera wire removed from the catheter identified a nick in the insulating wire jacket and damage to the wire conductors.Product analysis results indicate that the most probable problem mode for this device was camera wire damage causing an open circuit in the camera signal.Process controls for the problem mode on the manufacturing line include visual inspection and tooling designed to decrease the chances of wire damage during production.Camera calibration data was able to be obtained during returned product analysis indicating that the camera was properly calibrated and checked for an image, suggesting that the camera wire was intact throughout manufacturing.However, the camera wire is enclosed within the catheter once manufacturing is complete.Therefore, it is likely that assembly process steps such as camera/ pof potting, stuffing, and/ or pof bonding, and subsequent handling of the device, left the camera wire in a vulnerable state, leading to the wire fracture and image problems during field use.Based on all gathered information, the probable cause selected for the visualization problem is quality control deficiency.A labeling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the instructions for use (ifu) / product label.
|