|
Balt usa's reference number: (b)(4).Pending on investigation findings from supplier balt extrusion.The submission of this report or related information to the fda, and its release by fda, does not reflect a conclusion by the party submitting this report of the fda that the report or related information is an admission that the manufacturer, their employees, or the device caused or contributed to the reportable event.
|
|
Balt usa's reference number: (b)(4).The returned product was sent to supplier balt extrusion for deeper investigation, summary provided as follows: 1/the returned product was inspected in our quality laboratory with the support of the engineering teams.After analysis under binocular, we noted that the braid was not damaged and that the tubes were not collapsed.We tried to inflate and to deflate the balloon and we succeeded to do so without any specific difficulty.No anomaly was observed on the balloon shape and the deflation time was not longer than usual (see pictures attached for illustration).As a result, we were not able to reproduce the failure mode experienced by the user on our side.The returned product was sent to supplier balt extrusion for deeper investigation, summary provided as follows: 2/during our review of device history records (dhrs) and process of the eclipse2l, we noted that: the balloons are 100% controlled during manufacturing with an inflating test.The tubes integrity is also 100% controlled with a visual inspection before the packaging into protective dispensers.We did not observe any anomaly that could potentially explain the event described in the dhr.Our documentary record review also showed: a process deviation pd12060 applied for this specific lot number and was related to cleaning of the outer surface of the dispensers before the insertion of the magic and ecl2l: this has no technical link with the complaint #899; finally, no similar complaint had been reported for this lot number.3/the deflation failure could depend on the balloon position and so finally on the procedure conditions with the anatomical configuration and the device location when it is inflated and deflated.In this specific case, the balt sales representative indicated us that the patient anatomy was fairly tortuouse and he advised to user to "pull tension on the ballon and try to deflate"; the balloon came down and had been retrieved.In some configurations, with a proximal part of the balloon located in a tortuous segment, deflation could be made more difficult than usual.The ifu explains "viscosity and concentration of contrast mixture affect balloon inflation and deflation times".In this specific case, "the balloon was set up with 70/30 contrast saline".This proportion could have affected the deflation especially with the hypothese mentioned above.In conclusion, the results of the investigations led to show that this incident could have been caused by the procedure's conditions: anatomical configuration.This phenomena could have been also reinforced by an excessively viscous mixture due to the significant ratio of contrast inside.Failure was not reproduceable on our side, the returned product inspection did not reveal any anomaly, as well as the review of the manufacturing records.The submission of this report or related information to the fda, and its release by fda, does not reflect a conclusion by the party submitting this report of the fda that the report or related information is an admission that the manufacturer, their employees, or the device caused or contributed to the reportable event.
|