|
Items returned for evaluation: -pusher, -azur hydrocoil implant, -introducer, -dispenser hoop.Items not returned for evaluation: -shrink lock, -microcatheter, -v-grip, -azur cx implant.The visual analysis of the returned items found that the implant was not attached to the pusher and the pusher heater coil burnt.An implant was found stretched at the proximal section and entangled on the distal end of the pusher; an overcoil was observed on the implant, indicating that this implant is from an azur hydrocoil system.Therefore, the implant associated with the reported azur cx coil system was not returned.The device was tested with the 4-way continuity test using an in-house v-grip controller, and all tries gave out green lights.The pusher resistance was measured and gave 39.3 (spec=38-52) which is within specification, and proximal resistance of ol (spec=overload ) which is within specification.Furthermore, the investigation of the pusher found the monofilament with mushroom profile, which indicates that the device experienced thermal activation and the azur cx implant was successfully detached.The investigation of the returned coil system found the pusher heater coil burnt with no implant attached, indicating that the device did experience thermal activation from a detachment controller.Furthermore, the unit passed continuity and resistance testing and the pusher's monofilament profiled a mushroom shape, which is consistent with successful implant detachment.However, an implant was returned stretched at the proximal section and entangled on the distal end of the pusher, which would appear as if the implant did not detach under fluoroscopy.An overcoil was observed on the returned implant, indicating that the returned implant originated from an azur hydrocoil system that was used during the procedure as described in the reported event.This condition is consistent with the azur hydrocoil implant being pulled out of the target site by the reported azur cx pusher post-azur cx implant detachment.
|