(b)(4).Device evaluated by manufacturer: the device was returned for analysis.Microscopic and visual inspection of the handshake, coil, sheath, and burr were performed and revealed that the sheath separated approximately 110cm from the strain relief.The separated ends were jagged and stretched showing signs of tensile overload.The burr was not damaged.Inspection of the remainder of the device, apart from the observed damage, revealed no other damage or irregularities.The investigation conclusion is handling damage as the complaint was caused by handling of the device or portion of the device without direct patient contact.(b)(4).
|
Reportable based on device analysis completed on 27-apr-2018.It was reported that burr damage occurred.During introduction, it was noted the isolation around the 1.50mm rotalink¿ burr was damaged upon testing its speed outside patient's body.The procedure was completed with another of the same device.No patient complications were reported.However, device analysis revealed that the sheath had separated.
|