|
Balt usa reference #3800.The returned device was inspected in our quality laboratory.During our analysis: we noted that the implant's introducer sheath was not returned; we noted that the microcatheter associated with the incident was returned; we observed the hub of the returned microcatheter to be fractured from the shaft of the catheter and not returned; we observed the returned delivery pusher to be broken 1cm distal of the first warning stripe; we observed no visual damage to the detachment zone, with the lead wires and solder joints intact; we observed 4 minor kinks along the implant located 1mm, 3mm, 17mm, and 24mm distal of the detachment zone; we observed 5 major kinks along the implant located approximately 28mm distal of the detachment zone; we observed 1 major kink 1mm proximal of the implant's distal end; we observed the implant coil to be crushed 3mm and 28mm distal of the detachment zone; we observed the implant coil to have a gap 14mm distal of the detachment zone; we noted that the hub of the returned microcatheter was damaged and not returned, therefore an in-house coil was not able to advance through the microcatheter and the failure could not be replicated.Based on the available information and the investigation results the complaint can be confirmed.Root cause of the reported issue endured by the coil system cannot be definitively determined.Upon return of the device, the coil was observed to be detached from its delivery pusher, with the delivery pusher broken just distal of the warning stripes.Moreover, the implant was returned severely damaged, with observable flattened coils and multiple kinks throughout the implant.Despite implant damage, no observable damage was seen at the detachment zone, with the lead wires and solder joints intact.Moreover, the detachment zone indicated that a detachment cycle was not attempted.It is unknown when exactly the implant coils became damaged, or if the implant coils were damaged prior to advancement.Attempts made to advance the coil system while the implant is damaged can cause further damage to the implant.If the implant was damaged prior to insertion, this could have contributed to possible friction in the microcatheter, and potentially leading to the reported premature separation.It is unknown if the microcatheter had endured any ovalization due to bends in the anatomy or if the microcatheter became kinked during the procedure, both of which could have caused friction for the coil during advancement.It's likely that some of the damage observed along the implant was caused during retrieval with the snare device.Review of the lot history records did not reveal any in-process or lot-specific issue that could account for the observation.No additional complaints against lot number f210901241 has been made for the same issue.Comprehensive analysis of this failure mode has remained subject to monitoring for any unacceptable increase in trend.
|