|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.E1: name and address - name: (b)(6) h3: device evaluated by mfg = other (81) - device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
As originally reported by the customer, a roadrunner uniglide hydrophilic wire guide became "gritty" and rough once the hydrophilic coating was activated.There was no patient involvement.During evaluation of unused and sealed wires that were returned from the customer, the coating flaked from one of the wires.
|
|
Summary of event: as originally reported by the customer, a roadrunner uniglide hydrophilic wire guide became "gritty" and rough once the hydrophilic coating was activated.There was no patient involvement.During evaluation of unused and sealed wires that were returned from the customer, the coating flaked from one of the wires.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the unused complaint device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.A small white flake was noted on the wire, which was also ¿tacky¿.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device history record found no relevant non-conformances on the final or sub-assembly lots.A review of complaint history found no additional relevant complaints for this lot number and failure mode.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that a component failure, unrelated to manufacturing or design deficiencies, contributed to this event.The risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|