|
A visual inspection and scanning electron microscopy (sem) analysis were performed on the returned bdc and the reported balloon rupture was confirmed.The reported difficulty to remove was unable to be confirmed due to the returned condition of the device.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other incidents and/or complaints reported from this lot.The device was prepped prior to use and inflated once prior to the reported balloon rupture with no issue noted, which would suggest that the device was not damaged prior to use.The investigation determined the reported balloon rupture and difficulty to remove appear to be related to operational circumstances of the procedure.Based on the reported information, returned analysis and sem analysis, it is likely that during the second inflation, the balloon surface became damaged and/or compromised against the anatomy resulting in the reported balloon rupture during the second inflation.Due to the balloon rupture, the balloon did not properly refold causing resistance with the sheath and the reported bunching on the balloon resulting in the difficulty to remove.It is likely that manipulation against resistance with the sheath ultimately resulted in the noted separations and subsequent damages to the bdc.The reported treatments appear to be related to the operational context of the procedure as a surgical cut down and arteriotomy were performed in order to remove the ruptured balloon.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling; therefore, no corrective action is required.
|