|
Based on the results of the dhr review, there is no indication that the device, labeling or packaging failed to meet its specifications when released.The device was received.The reported lot number was confirmed from the packaging label.On visual/microscopic inspection, the catheter shaft was kinked in several places along its length (41cm 60cm, and 80cm from strain relief).The inner shaft coil was unraveled at 80cm from the strain relief.The catheter shaft was twisted at 89cm from strain relief.The shaft was fractured at 94cm from strain relief.The inner shaft coil wire braid was exposed and was stretched and tangled.The distal fractured shaft of the vecta catheter (21cm) was not returned.Functional test was not required as the defect was visually confirmed.The reported event is covered in the device directions for use (dfu).As well, the risk of the reported event is documented in the risk documentation and there are current controls to mitigate the risk of the as reported event.Additional information provided by the customer indicated that no anomalies were noted to the device prior to use, the device was prepared as per the dfu, continuous flush was maintained for the duration of the procedure, resistance was encountered in the internal carotid artery (ica) during the procedure, and the patient's anatomy was very tortuous.Device analysis revealed the catheter shaft was kinked in several places along its length and was twisted and fractured at its distal end.The fracture was not proximal as was initially reported in the complaint.Elongation/stretching was observed at the fracture site indicating that tugging/pulling of the vecta during the procedure likely contributed to the fracture.The physician also reported very tortuous anatomy which may have caused resistance in the ica and may have also been a contributing factor to the fracture.No other information was provided on other devices used in the procedure.As a result, a definitive root cause could not be assessed, although it is likely procedural/anatomical related.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the as reported and as analyzed anomalies since this complaint appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu but performance was limited due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use.
|