|
There are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual inspection, there was no attempt made to shape the tip.The guidewire was noted to be kinked/bent at 69cm and 188cm from the proximal end.The guidewire ptfe coating was noted to be peeling in multiple areas to 50cm from the proximal end.The guidewire hydrophilic coating was noted to be rough.The core wire distal end was observed through the distal tip dome.The guidewire was soaked in water.After soaking the guidewire, it was inspected wet.The hydrophilic coating was intact.The guidewire distal tip revealed slight uneven swelling/bulge on its distal tip.When dry after approximately 10 seconds, the distal tip showed no anomaly and the swelling/bulge had disappeared.During functional inspection, the guidewire was advanced through a flushed demonstration microcatheter, friction was noted as the guidewire advanced towards the distal end of the microcatheter.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 complaint was confirmed based on analysis.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.Additional information provided by the customer indicated that the wire would not load into the microcatheter, when examined the guidewire appeared to be 'bumpy' at the distal end.During analysis, the guidewire was noted to be kinked/bent at 69cm and 188cm from the proximal end, and the guidewire ptfe coating was noted to be peeling in multiple areas to 50cm from the proximal end.The peeling most likely occurred as a result of interaction with another device.The damage noted is consistent with backloading the proximal end of the guidewire into the distal end of the introducer and pulling it through the introducer.The guidewire hydrophilic coating was noted to be rough.The guidewire was soaked in water.After soaking the guidewire, it was inspected wet.The hydrophilic coating was intact.The guidewire distal tip revealed slight uneven swelling/bulge on its distal tip, when dry after approximately 10 seconds, the distal tip showed no anomaly and the swelling/bulge had disappeared.During the dimensional inspection, the od's were confirmed to be within specification when the device was both wet and dry.During the functional inspection, the guidewire was advanced through a flushed demonstration microcatheter, and slight friction was noted towards the distal end of the microcatheter.An assignable cause of ¿procedural factors¿ will be assigned to the as reported/as analyzed 'guidewire difficult to advance' and ¿guidewire hydrophilic coating surface rough' as well as the as analyzed ¿guidewire friction' and ¿device has cosmetic/appearance issue' since these issues appear 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 and/or anatomical factors during use.An assignable cause of ¿handling damage¿ will be assigned to the as analyzed ¿guidewire ptfe coating peeling' and ¿guidewire kinked/bent' as the issue is due to handling of the product or portion of the product during the clinical procedure, upon removal of the product from the packaging, or preparation of the product prior to use.
|