The manufacturing batch lot was not provided therefore we were unable to review the device history records.The device was returned for analysis.As received, the specimen consists of one each clinically used proximal 116.5cm of the unidentified safari device; returned coiled, loose and double bagged within "zip-lock" style poly biohazard pouches.The specimen presents fracture of the core wire and several fractures of the coil wire; the proximal aspect of the distal-most coil wire fracture has sustained too much damage to determine the nature of the fracture.All material distal of the core wire fracture and the distal-most coil wire fracture is missing.The core wire fracture and the coil wire fractures in the body of the device appear consistent with ductile, tensile overload.The specimen also presents numerous bends of varying severity and frequency scattered over the length of the device.The outer coil wraps present extensive stretch and offset coil damage in addition to ptfe coating damage including removal.The offset coil damage results in localized oversized diameter to.04435".The proximal joint appears to be correct and intact by visual examination and by non-destructive testing.The complaint narrative does not make mention of any fracture to the safari wire; however, supplemental communications indicate the safari wire and lotus catheter were removed as a unit and returned as a unit, it is likely that the fracture occurred during post-clinical attempts to separate the two devices.At this time, it is not possible to assign a definitive root cause for the event as reported.Based on the evidence presented by the sample and the information provided by the supporting documentation, procedural and/or clinical factors appear to have impacted on the event as reported.If additional information is received a follow-up medwatch report will be submitted.
|