|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, complaint and lot history review, applicable previous investigation(s), sample analysis, applicable fmea documents, labeling, and applicable manufacture records.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged punctured sheath was confirmed but the exact cause is unknown.The product return for evaluation was a powerpicc 5fr solo2 microintroducer dilator/sheath.The sample was returned with dilator within the sheath.Further, evaluation also confirmed that the sample has been used and there is a presence of a crumpled region of sheath at the distal edge.Microscopic examination of that sheath showed that the damage region contained two points of apparent contact and evidence that a force had been applied to pull that region of sheath towards the proximal end.Further examination of the sheath/dilator region found that the transition between the two components appeared to be normally formed and unremarkable.Insufficient evidence was observed to confirm the exact nature of the damage seen but possible causes could be an insertion angle which was too great or failure to twist the introducer set upon advancement into the insertion site in conjunction with the edge of the sheath being caught on hard fascia or tissue.A lot history review (lhr) of reez3473 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|