|
A visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported material separation was confirmed.The reported difficult to remove could not be tested due to the device condition.A review of the production records and the corrective and preventive actions (capa) database was performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot revealed no indication of a lot specific issue.The investigation was unable to determine a conclusive cause for the reported difficulties; however, the subsequent patient effect appears to be related to operational circumstances.It was reported that the guide wire encountered resistance during removal from the anatomy.Factors that may contribute to difficulty encountered during removal include, but are not limited to, outer diameter of the guide wire, device support, challenging anatomy, interaction with accessory devices, buildup of procedural contaminants, user technique, and/or damage to the guide wire.Base on the information provided and the returned device analysis, it cannot be determined what contributed to the difficulty during removal.Additionally, it was reported that the guide wire had separated during its removal from the anatomy.Analysis of the returned wire noted the shaping ribbon, at the separation, was in a corkscrew shape.This type of damage indicates the tip was subject to torsional force while the tip encountered resistance, possibly contributing to the separation.Analysis also noted stretched and misaligned coils.This type of coil damage is consistent with a tip separation.The separated portion of the guide wire remains within the patient¿s anatomy.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|