|
A search for non-conformances associated with the reported part and lot number combination did not reveal any production-related issues relevant to the complaint that occurred during manufacturing of the device.The device was returned to the manufacturer and its evaluation was completed.Investigation findings: items returned for evaluation: pusher, implant, introducer.Items not returned for evaluation: dispenser hoop, shrink lock, microcatheter, v-grip.The visual analysis of the returned items found the implant loops deformed and separated from the pusher.Investigation of the pusher found the monofilament broken, which indicates the device experienced a tensile break.Investigation conclusion: the investigation of the returned coil system found the implant loops deformed and separated from the pusher.Inspection of the pusher found the monofilament with a tensile break shape at the tip, which is consistent with the device experiencing tensile force that exceeded the strength of the monofilament causing the implant to separate from the pusher.The physical evaluation of the device could not identify the conditions or circumstances that led to the implant deformity, but this condition is consistent with the device experiencing forces over specification.The microcatheter used in the procedure was not returned for evaluation, so the investigation could not determine if it had caused or contributed to the reported complaint.The instructions for use (ifu) identifies premature or difficult coil detachment as potential complications associated with use of the device.
|