|
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 three pieces approximately 3.9 and 4.8 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 delamination of the polyimide tubing was observed at the proximal break site.The core wire of the stylet at the break site was observed to be slightly tapered.Many kinks were observed in the polyimide tubing between magnet interfaces near the break sites, and at least one magnet was observed to be broken.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.A lot history review (lhr) of ref (b)(4) showed one other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.The complaints for this lot number (ref (b)(4)) have been reported from the same facility.H3 other text: evaluation findings are in section h11.
|