A visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture and separation were confirmed.The reported difficulty removing the device could not be replicated in a testing environment as it was based on operational circumstances.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other similar incidents and/or complaints from this lot.The investigation determined the reported balloon rupture, difficulty removing the device, separation, surgical procedure, hospitalization, and removal of foreign body appear to be related to circumstances of the procedure.There was no leak noted during preparation, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulties.Based on the reported information and analysis of the returned device, it is likely that the balloon rupture was the result of interaction with the heavily calcified lesion.In addition, the resistance noted during removal and radial separation of the balloon was likely the result of the ruptured balloon material catching on the challenging anatomy during removal.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to design, manufacture or labeling of the device.
|