|
After further review of additional information received the following sections have been updated accordingly: b4, g3, g6, h1, h2, h3, h6, and h11.Complaint conclusion: as reported, the balloon of a 6mm x 150mm saber.014 percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (pta) balloon catheter ruptured.A non-cordis balloon was used as a replacement.There were no reported injuries to the patient.The device was stored and prepped per the instructions for use (ifu).There was no difficulty removing any of the sterile packaging components.The device maintained negative pressure during preparation.One-third contrast and two-thirds saline were used to prep the balloon.The target vessel was the superficial femoral artery (sfa).The target site vessel did not have calcification or tortuosity.A non-sterile unit of ¿pta, rx, 6.0 x 150, 150cm¿ was received for analysis coiled inside of a clear plastic bag.The device was unpacked to proceed with the product evaluation.A thorough inspection was performed observing that the unit does not present any damages.The balloon arrived not inflated.No other outstanding details were observed.Functional test was performed.One inflator/deflator device was attached to the inflation port.Balloon inflation test was done applying positive pressure using the inflator/deflator device with the purpose of reaching the rate burst pressure (rbp).However, inflation pressure was not maintained due to a leak in the balloon caused by a rupture on the surface.The balloon was inspected with a vision system observing a rupture on the surface where the water was leaking.The balloon surface presented evidence of a rupture condition and secondary scratch marks located near the damaged border area.The failure reported by the customer as ¿balloon~burst¿ was confirmed, since a rupture condition was observed on the balloon surface that cause leaking, impeding maintenance of the inflation pressure.The exact cause of this condition observed on the balloon could not be conclusive determined during the analysis.Procedural factors and handling process may have contributed to the failure as reported.This type of damage is commonly caused during the interaction of the material with a sharp object or mechanical damage.It is very likely that the same factors that caused the observed scratch marks on the surface could probably led to the damaged condition found on the received device.It seems that the material near the damaged area was affected with a sharp object from the outside of the device.The product analysis does not suggest that the observed damage could be related to the manufacturing process; therefore, no corrective action will be taken at this time.
|