|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes) there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.The subject coil was not returned for analysis; therefore, physical as well as a functional testing could not be performed.The reported event is covered in the device direction 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 complaint could not be confirmed, and it could not be definitively determined if the device failed to meet specifications because the product was not returned.Per the event description there was resistance noted during advancement of the subject coil inside the microcatheter.It is likely that the subject coil was damaged as a result and broke during the removal of the coil.However, as the subject coil has not been returned, this cannot be confirmed.There were no anomalies noted to the device prior to use and appears to have been prepared per the dfu.While there are a number of potential causes for the reported issues, because a review of available information failed to identify a definitive cause and the device was not returned for analysis, an assignable cause of undeterminable was assigned to this complaint.
|
|
It was reported that during internal carotid artery coil embolization procedure, resistance was felt while advancing subject coil in the shaft of microcatheter.It was then decided to retrieve and upon removal from the patient's body, the proximal end of the subject coil was found to be broken and stretched.There were no clinical consequences to the patient reported as a result of this event and the procedure was completed successfully with another device.Patient was stable after the procedure.
|