|
It was reported that during arteriovenous malformation (avm) case, physician rotated the subject guidewire for advancement in patient body, but the distal tip was not moved following the rotation at proximal.On withdrawal, the distal tip of the subject guidewire was found fractured and the procedure was completed successfully with another device.No clinical consequences were reported to the patient due to this event.
|
|
It was reported that during arteriovenous malformation (avm) case, physician rotated the subject guidewire for advancement in patient body, but the distal tip was not moved following the rotation at proximal.On withdrawal, the distal tip of the subject guidewire was found fractured and the procedure was completed successfully with another device.No clinical consequences were reported to the patient due to this event.
|
|
H4 manufacturing date ¿ added.H3 device evaluated by mfg ¿updated.H3 summary attached - updated.D4 expiration date - added.D9 / h3 product available to stryker ¿ updated.D9 returned to manufacturer on ¿updated.There are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual and microscopic inspection, it was observed that the subject guidewire was returned in two segments (190cm proximal and 10cm distal).The proximal segment was inspected, and the nitinol tubing was broken but the core wire and platinum coil were not visible.The hydrophilic coating was found to be rough on the proximal segment and a bubble with collapsed dome was noted towards the distal end of the segment.The distal segment was inspected, and the nitinol tubing was broken with the core wire exposed and the core wire was observed through the distal tip dome.Functional testing was not required as reported event was confirmed from visual inspection.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 event was confirmed based on the damage noted to the returned device.The device failed to meet specification when returned for analysis.Additional information provided by the customer did not indicate any issues noted during unpacking or set up of the device, and the device was prepared as per dfu instructions.There was no indication of a user related issue.The anatomy was reported to be moderately tortuous.The guidewire tip was shaped, about 45°.The issue was noted on the subject guidewire distal end.There was no friction/resistance encountered during the procedure and the wire was not torqued to overcome the resistance.The subject guidewire was positioned within the external carotid artery when the issue occurred.There was no high tortuosity.The fractured segment was removed from the patient anatomy.A snare device was not used to remove the fractured segment.There was no injury to the patient due to this event.The reported problem is: the subject guidewire was inside the microcatheter.The operator rotated the subject guidewire, but the tip was not moved following the rotation at proximal.The operator removed the fractured segment from inside the microcatheter by using a syringe to maintain the negative pressure condition of the microcatheter and took the catheter out to bring the fractured guidewire out.Analysis of the returned device revealed that the subject guidewire was broken/fractured in two segments (190cm proximal and 10cm distal).The nitinol tubing was broken but the core wire and platinum coil were not visible in the proximal segment and the nitinol tubing was broken with the core wire exposed in the distal segment.The damage noted to the returned subject guidewire indicates a significant force was used during the procedure.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the as reported and as analyzed code 'guidewire distal tip broken/fractured during use' as the issue is associated with a product that meets stryker design and manufacture specifications and was used in according with the dfu but due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use, the product performance was limited.Product analysis also found the hydrophilic coating was rough on the proximal segment and a bubble with collapsed dome was noted towards the distal end of the segment.The bubble found on the device had been analyzed by research & development (r&d).Based on the results of scanning electron microscope (sem) and energy dispersive x-ray (edx) testing, it appears that the bubble and the control section of the coating are the same substance.The cause of coating bubble, which is most likely hydrophilic coating, could not be definitively determined.Therefore, based on the review and analysis of the available information, a cause of undeterminable will be assigned to the as analyzed code 'guidewire hydrophilic coating surface rough'.
|