|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, applicable previous investigation(s), sample analysis, applicable fmea documents, applicable manufacturing records, and labeling.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged microintroducer was confirmed, but the exact cause could not be determined.One 4.5fr x 7cm microintroducer was returned for investigation.The returned sample resembled the introducer in the photograph that was provided for investigation.The dilator and sheath appeared curved due to slight bends along the length of the dilator and sheath.The sheath length and dilator length were within specification.The outside diameter of the dilator was also within specification.A microscopic examination a 0.5mm longitudinal split at the distal tip of the sheath.While the split at the distal end of the sheath may have been a contributing factor in the reported event, it could not be determined if the split existed prior to use or was an effect of the difficult insertion.A review of the manufacturing records showed no findings that indicated damage associated with the manufacturing process.Although the complaint was confirmed, the investigation did not point to a specific root cause.A lot history review (lhr) of redy0810 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|