|
The coil (subject device) was returned for analysis, and it was discovered that the coil (subject device) found to have prematurely detached or separated.A portion of the coil that was removed from the microcatheter was found to be fractured.The subject device was replaced, and the procedure was completed successfully.No clinical consequences were reported to the patient due to this event.
|
|
Due to the automated mes (manufacturing execution system) system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual inspection, the main coil was noted to be stuck inside of the microcatheter.The coil delivery wire was noted to be kinked/bent.The main coil was noted to be detached/separated.The portion of the coil was removed from the microcatheter and noted to be stretched and broken/fractured.A functional inspection could not be carried out due to the damage noted.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 'coil in catheter friction', 'main coil friction' and 'main coil difficulty inserting' could not be duplicated during device analysis; however, the analysis results are consistent with the reported event.It was reported that the physician tried inserting the subject coil, which also got stuck in the microcatheter and was unable to be retracted.Additional information provided by the customer indicated that device prepared as per the dfu and continuous flush was maintained for the duration of the procedure.The device was returned for analysis, and it was noted that the main coil was stuck inside the microcatheter.Additionally, the coil delivery wire was found to be kinked or bent.The main coil was also found to have prematurely detached or separated.Finally, a portion of the coil that was removed from the microcatheter was found to be stretched and fractured.Based on a review of all available information and the analysis of the returned device it is probable that procedural factors contributed to the as analyzed 'coil jammed', 'main coil stretched', 'main coil broken/fractured during use', 'main coil prematurely detached/separated during use', and 'coil delivery wire kinked/bent.' this complaint appears to be associated with a product that met stryker and design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use.Therefore, an assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the reported complaint.
|