|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, trend analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged dilator was confirmed; however, the root cause was not identified.The product returned for evaluation was one photograph which depicted a microintroducer dilator/sheath.The depicted portion of the device included the distal tip and part of the shaft.The dilator was inlaid through the sheath.Biological residue was observed on the sample.The tip of the peel-apart sheath appeared deformed and compressed.The bunched region appeared flared away from the dilator shaft.The sheath deformation and biological residue were consistent with damage caused by attempted advancement against resistance, such as into tissue; however, inspection of the photograph was insufficient to identify if difficult insertion resulted in device damage, or if pre-existing device damage resulted in difficult insertion.Consequently this complaint is confirmed as ¿cause unknown¿ at this time.A lot history review (lhr) of reft3561 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|