|
Visual analysis and additional testing were performed on the returned device.The imaging issue was unable to be confirmed due to the condition of the returned device (dried contrast within the sheath) which prevented functional testing.A review of the lot history record identified no manufacturing nonconformities issued to the reported lot that would have contributed to this event.A query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot was performed and revealed there is no indication of a lot level quality product issue.Based on the information provided and analysis of the returned device, the reported poor imaging results were due to operational context.It is likely that the observed optical fiber break caused the reported imaging issue.It could be that the patient¿s anatomical condition(s) or the use technique(s) employed by the user caused the observed optical fiber damage; however, this could not be confirmed.There were multiple tears throughout the window tube of the sheath, and at the site of bends/kinks.The tears would have occurred outside the patient and during post procedure handling/removal, as the device would not have been able to function as expected if the damage was present during use.The damage was determined to be unrelated to the reported imaging issue and observed optical fiber break and was due to post-use conditions/handling.It should be noted that there were five (5) successful pullbacks recorded on the returned device.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.Na.
|