Device evaluation: 1 unit of lot c1619851 of echo-19 involved in this complaint was returned for evaluation, with the original packaging.With the information provided, a physical examination and document based investigation was conducted.Lab evaluation: the device involved in the complaint was evaluated in the laboratory on (b)(6) 2020.In summary the following results were observed in the lab evaluation: device functioned as intended.Tip of the sheath appears to be cut.Sheath extender advanced and retract without any difficulties.No kinks or deformation on distal end of needle observed.Needle advanced and retract without any issues.Stylet removed and no defects observed.Needle removed from the device and no defect observed.Document review including ifu review prior to distribution, all echo-19 devices are subjected to functional checks and visual inspection to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl a review of the manufacturing records for echo-19 of lot number c1619851 did not reveal any discrepancies that could have contributed to this complaint issue.There is no evidence to suggest that this issue affects the entire lot # c1619851; upon review of complaints this failure mode has not occurred previously with this lot # c1619851.The notes section of the instructions for use, se, ifu0101-1, which accompanies this device instructs the user "this device is used to sample targeted submucosal gastrointestinal lesions through the accessory channel of an ultrasound endoscope." there is evidence to suggest that the customer did not follow the instructions for use, from the information provided, the location in the body for the intended target site was mediastinum.As per engineering input: "the physician/assistant used the device in a situation not specified for intended use.Root cause review: a definitive root cause could be determined from the available information.From the information provided, the location in the body for the intended target site was mediastinum, this would be off-label use.As per engineering input, "the ¿needle penetrated the surface of sheath¿ could have occurred due to the fact the physician/assistant used the device in a situation not specified for intended use summary: complaint is confirmed based on the customer's testimony.According to the initial reporter, the patient did experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.From additional information received "customer just confirmed the procedure was complete with same lot# of complaint product." complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|