|
A visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported separation was confirmed.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 separation, device embedded in tissue or plaque and unexpected medical intervention appear to be related to circumstance of the procedure.Factors that may contribute to a balloon separation may include, but not limited to, manufacturing damage, interaction with the anatomy, user attempts to remove against resistance and physician applies excessive force against resistance.Returned device analysis noted that the material at the noted shaft separation was stretched and jagged which suggests that the separation may be related to tensile overload (material stress/fatigue).In this case, it is likely that the bdc interacted with the patient anatomy and/or accessory device which resulted in tensile overload and upon manipulation of the device during removal the bdc ultimately separated.Additional treatment with a stent was performed to embed the separated portion into the vessel.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respects to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|