|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes) there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual and microscopic inspection, it was observed that two pieces of the cut microcatheter were returned with the main coil detached.There was a snare device found inserted in the cut microcatheter.The coil delivery wire was not returned.The main coil was seen kinked/bent and found to be stretched.Functional inspection was not required as the returned coil wasn¿t broken.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 reported event was confirmed during device analysis as the device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.However, the main coil was not fractured, and the entire coil was returned.It was reported that after deployment of the coil, while pulling back the microcatheter, the coil was jammed in the tip of the microcatheter and pulled out of the coil mass.A snare had to be used to retrieve the coil from the patient.The physician perceived the coil to have fractured but based on the returned device inspection it was confirmed that the coil had not broken but was damaged.An assignable cause of not confirmed will be assigned to the as reported 'main coil broken/fractured during use'.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the as reported 'coil in catheter friction', 'coil jammed', 'main coil protrusion' and the as analyzed 'main coil kinked/bent', 'main coil stretched' as this complaint appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.
|