|
The device was returned and the lot number was confirmed with the packaging returned with the device.During visual inspection, the main coil was not returned and was seen to be detached from the pusher wire.Functional inspection was not carried out due to the damage noted.Due to the automated mes system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.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 reported complaint was confirmed based on analysis.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.Additional information provided by the customer indicated that the device was confirmed to be in good condition during preparation/prior to use on the patient and was prepared as per the dfu, continuous flush was set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure, the coil was not advanced or retracted with force, and the patient's anatomy was not tortuous.Analysis of the returned device revealed the main coil had been separated from the pusher wire.The main coil was not returned.Based on visual inspection, it appears the coil had been manually detached.In the case of this complaint, it is probable that the main coil was manipulated against resistance inside the microcatheter during use resulting in premature separation from the delivery wire.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the event since this issue 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.
|