It was reported that the deltaplush coil was longer than designed.After the coil marker passed through the proximal marker of the microcatheter, the coil was still coming out form the marker band.Analysis revealed that the coil was severely damaged at the proximal section, but there was no issue with the marker band.
|
(b)(6).Complaint conclusion: the coil¿s length was checked upon receipt and was found to be within the required specification of 8.0cm.The proximal end of the coil was found to be severely buckled in multiple areas.The remainder of the coil is undamaged.Located distal to the marker band, the device positioning unit¿s (dpu) tip coil section has multiple sections of severe buckling.The tip coil section was straightened to remove the buckling for inspection purposes.The marker band location was found to be 31.5mm which is within the specification range of 31 to 32mm.The coil and dpu were found to be severely buckled upon receipt.The coil¿s length and the marker band location were both found to be within engineering specifications.The buckling of the dpu reduced the marker band location in relationship to the length between the marker band and the distal tip.This buckling caused the marker band of the dpu to line up with the marker band of the microcatheter before the coil was fully delivered inside the aneurysm.The most likely root cause of the coil appearing to be longer than specification was due to the selection of the incompatible microcatheter.The increased microcatheter¿s diameter may have led to the buckling damage to the unit.For optimum performance, we recommend the following, as stated in the product instructs of use: ¿proper selection of the appropriately sized microcatheter is required to avoid damage to the micrus microcoil system and to minimize potential complications¿the micrus microcoil 10 system is compatible with microcatheters with inner lumen diameters ranging from 0.014 to 0.017 inches¿ the inner lumen of the excelsior 1018 microcatheter is 0.019.Since there was no manufacturing related issues related to the complaint, no corrective actions were taken.This mdr is being submitted as part of a retrospective review as the result of a recent fda audit and with accordance to the requirements of code of federal regulations - 21 cfr part 803, medical device reporting.
|