|
Visual and dimensional inspections were performed on the returned guide wire and the reported separation was conformed.The reported failure to advance was unable to be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.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.There was no damage noted to the guide wire during the inspection prior to use which suggests a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling did not contribute to the reported difficulties.The investigation determined the reported failure to advance and tip separation and foreign body in the patient appear to be related to operational circumstances of the procedure.In this case based on the reported information, it is likely that during advancement, the guide wire tip became damaged against the anatomy causing the failure to advance.Manipulation during retraction ultimately resulted in the tip separation and noted stretched coils.The noted teflon coating damage likely occurred during retraction through the torque device used in the procedure.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.Na.
|