|
Visual analysis and optical fiber testing were performed on the returned device.The reported imaging loss was unable to be confirmed due to the condition of the returned device as the dried contrast prevented functional testing.However, an optical fiber test was performed which revealed an optical fiber fracture at the lens region.Meanwhile, the reported difficulty to remove 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 revealed no other complaints reported from this lot.The investigation determined that the reported imaging loss was likely related to the circumstances of the procedure.Based on the evaluation of the returned device, the difficulty appears to be due to the noted optical fiber fracture.It is likely that during positioning within the anatomy, damage to the optical fiber occurred.Meanwhile, it may be possible the anatomical condition caused the reported difficulty to remove; however, this could not be confirmed.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|