|
(b)(4).The customer returned one, opened cvc kit for analysis.Signs of use in the form of biological material were observed on the dilator tip and inside the catheter body.This contradicts the customer report that the defect was observed prior to use.The customer was contacted to address the discrepancy of the signs of use and they confirmed that the defect was observed during use.Visual analysis revealed that the dilator tip was split/frayed.Microscopic examination confirmed the damage and revealed scratch marks adjacent to the damage.The appearance of the damage is consistent with damage resulting from undue force used during an attempted insertion.The dilator length measured 4", which is within the specification limits of 3 3/4"-4 1/4" per the dilator product drawing.The dilator outer diameter measured 0.112", which is within the specification limits of 0.111"-0.113" per the dilator extrusion product drawing.The dilator inner diameter at the proximal end measured 0.064", which is within the specification limits of 0.064"-0.067" per the dilator extrusion product drawing.The dilator inner diameter at the distal tip cannot be verified due to the severity of the damage.A lab inventory guide wire with a diameter of 0.032" was inserted through the dilator.Minor resistance was encountered at the tip; however, the guide wire passed through all other sections of the dilator with little to no issue.Performed per ifu statement , "use tissue dilator to enlarge tissue tract to the vein as required.Follow the angle of the guidewire slowly through the skin".A device history record review was performed, and no relevant findings were identified.The ifu provided with the kit informs the user, "do not use excessive force when introducing guidewire or tissue dilator as this can lead to vessel perforation, bleeding, or component damage".The report of a damaged dilator tip was confirmed through complaint investigation.Visual analysis revealed that the dilator tip was split/frayed.Scratch marks were also noted adjacent to the damage.The appearance of the damage is consistent with damage resulting from undue force used during an attempted insertion.The dilator met all relevant dimensional and functional requirements, and a device history record review did not reveal any relevant findings.Based on the customer report and the sample received, unintentional use error likely caused or contributed to this event.Teleflex will continue to monitor and trend for reports of this nature.
|