|
The lot number was reviewed for complaint trend, non-conforming report and capa.Devices met specification prior to release and no trends were noted.Without the benefit of examination and testing, coloplast is precluded from commenting on the condition of the device or the cause of the occurrence.Should additional facts prompt us to alter or supplement any information or conclusions contained in the original mdr or in any prior supplemental reports, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
|
Titan pump, cylinders 1 and 2, and reservoir were received for evaluation.Abrasion was noted on both exhaust tubes and the inlet tube of the pump.No functional abnormalities were noted with the pump.Abrasion was noted on the exhaust tubing of cylinder 1.Two separations, surrounded by abrasion, were noted on the exhaust tubing of cylinder 1.These were sites of leakage.A separation was noted on the bladder of cylinder 2.This is a site of leakage.The separation had surfaces with a darkened or melted appearance, indicating contact with a cauterizing tool.Abrasion was noted on the inlet tube of the reservoir.Two separations, surrounded by abrasion, were noted on the inlet tube of the reservoir.These were sites of leakage.Based on examination of the returned product, it was concluded that while in-vivo both the exhaust tubes and inlet tube of the pump had overlapped and abraded against one another.This positioning, in combination with device usage over time, could contribute to sufficient stress to separate the cylinder 1 exhaust tubing and the reservoir inlet tubing.Separations of this type could then allow the loss of fluid, making the device inoperable.Because these components were released according to manufacturing and quality control procedures, it was concluded that the observed instrument separation in the bladder of cylinder 2 occurred after the device packaging was opened.In addition, because the expected use of this device combined with the observed separation would have resulted in an earlier detected fluid loss, it was concluded that the separation most likely occurred during or after explant.This separation is not associated with the cause for failure.A review of the device history record confirmed the devices from this lot met all specifications prior to release.A review of the complaint history database, nonconformances and capas revealed no trends for this lot.
|