The complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown.(b)(4).The device has not been received for analysis.Upon receipt and completion of the problem analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
Block d4, h4: the complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown.Block h6 (device codes): medical device problem code a0401 captures the reportable event of cutting wire broken.Block h10: the returned truetome dreamwire 44 was analyzed, and a visual evaluation noted that the cutting wire was broken from the proximal pierced hole.The device was observed under magnification and the cutting wire was broken, bent, and blackened.It was also found that the distal pierced hole was torn.No other problems with the device were noted.The reported event of cutting wire break was confirmed.Upon analysis, it was found that the cutting wire was broken and blackened.The cutting wire being blackened indicates that the device was energized.Based on the condition of the device, the problem found could have been generated if there was contact between the device and the scope during energization or if the generator exceeded the maximum of voltage during the procedure.Also, energizing the device prior to performing sphincterotomy can compromise the cutting wire's integrity and cause a premature cutting wire fatigue.Once the cutting wire breaks, any attempt to remove the device from the scope can lead to the broken section hitting the working channel of the scope.This can kink the cutting wire and tear the distal pierce hole.Based on all gathered information, the most probable root cause of this complaint is adverse event related to procedure.A review of the manufacturing documentation for this device was unable to be performed as the lot number is unknown.However, a ship history review was performed to identify the most probable lots, and a device history review (dhr) on the most probable lots did not identify any anomalies or deviations within manufacturing/service processes that could have contributed to the event.A labeling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the instructions for use (ifu) / product label.
|