|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes) there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During the visual inspection, the distal end of the main coil was noted to be stretched and the main coil and suture were broken.Functional inspection was not required as the defect was visually confirmed. the reported event is covered in the device directions for use (dfu).As well, the risk of the reported event is documented in the risk documentation and there are current controls to mitigate the risk of the as reported event.The reported event was confirmed; the analysis results are consistent with the reported event.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.It was reported that the shape of the filled coil was not good enough so the operator withdrew it and tried to adjust.However when withdrawing the coil, the tip of the coil stretched.Additional information states that the device was prepared for use as per the directions for use, the device was confirmed to be in good condition during preparation/prior to use on the patient, continuous flush set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure and the patients anatomy was not tortuous.The device was returned for analysis and it was confirmed that the coil had stretched, the coil was also noted to be broken/fractured with suture damage.It is probable that the main coil was stretched and subsequently broken during the attempt to remove the coil from the aneurysm.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the reported and analyzed 'main coil stretched', and to the analyzed 'main coil broken/fractured during use' and 'main coil suture damage', as this complaint appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.
|