|
Visual inspection and functional testing were performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture was confirmed.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a review of the complaint history identified no other similar complaints from this lot.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, the investigation determined that the reported balloon rupture appears to be related to circumstances of the procedure.There was no leak noted during preparation or during the first two initial inflation, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulties.It was reported by the account that the bdc was inserted into the anatomy and successfully inflated twice with no issues and then reinserted and ruptured during the third inflation.In this case, it is likely that the balloon interacted with an accessory device during removal/reinsertion of the device and/or the patient¿s anatomy such that the balloon became damaged and subsequently ruptured during the third inflation.Based on the results of the complaint investigation there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|