|
Due to the automated mes system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.The device was returned with a dispenser coil.The lot number was confirmed with the packaging returned with the device.On visual inspection, the delivery wire & proximal contact wire were intact.Several kinks were present along the coil delivery wire.The main coil was stretched, kinked and broken.Procedural fluids were also present.The suture was damaged.Functional testing could not be performed as the coil was severely damaged.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.The device was returned for analysis and the coil was found stretched, kinked/bent, suture was also damaged and coil broken.In the case of this complaint, it is most likely that anatomical or procedural factors resulted in the target coil stretched, kinked/bent, damaged suture and eventually broke/fractured when trying to remove.This complaint appears to be associated with a product that met stryker and design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.Therefore an assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the as reported and as analyzed events.An assignable cause of handling damage will be assigned to the as analyzed coil delivery wire kinked/bent as it is most likely that the delivery wire kinked due to handling of the device during use.
|
|
It was reported that during the procedure, the subject coil was stretched.It was initially reported that during the procedure, the subject coil was stretched.Analysis of the device revealed that the subject main coil was broken/fractured during use.There was no clinical consequence to the patient as a result of this event.
|