|
H11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, complaint and lot history review, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), labeling, applicable manufacture records, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged stylet is confirmed; however, the exact cause is unknown.One 3cg stylet was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation showed use residue on the returned sample.The returned stylet was observed to be broken into two pieces approximately 2.6 cm proximal to its distal tip.The epoxy tip of the stylet was observed present and intact on the distal segment.A microscopic observation revealed the break sites in the polyimide tubing were uneven with a rough surface texture and plastic deformation.Some tapering and delamination were observed in the polyimide tubing at the break sites.The core wire of the stylet was observed to have torn through the polyimide tubing and the break site at the end of the core wire was observed to be tapered and angled slightly.Multiple kinks were observed in the polyimide tubing between magnet interfaces proximal to the break site.The observed fracture features were indicative of severe and/or repetitive stylet kinking, which likely occurred during the insertion process.However, the exact circumstances providing for that type of event were ultimately unknown.H3 other text: evaluation findings are in section h11.
|