|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes), there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual/microscopic inspection, the main coil was seen to be stretched.The main suture was seen to be damaged, and the main coil was also seen to be broken.Functional inspection was not applicable.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 reported coil in catheter friction could not be duplicated; however, the analysis results are consistent with the reported event.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.Additional information provided by the customer is, coil to go into microcatheter and before it reached tip of microcatheter big resistance was encountered and it could not be advanced any more.The patient¿s anatomy was not tortuous.The device was prepared as per dfu.The device was seen to be in good condition prior to use on the patient.During analysis, the main coil was seen to be broken, stretched and the suture damaged.Functional testing could not be carried out.An assignable cause of ¿procedural factors¿ will be assigned to the as reported ¿coil in catheter friction¿ appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.An assignable cause of ¿procedural factors¿ will be assigned to the as analyzed ¿main coil stretched¿ and ¿main coil broken/fractured during use¿ and ¿main coil suture damaged¿ these defects appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.
|