|
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 coil delivery wire was seen to be kinked/bent, the main coil was found to be broken/fractured, and the main coil suture was found to be damaged.The rest of the fractured coil was not returned.A functional inspection was unable to perform as the main coil was returned broken/fractured.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 could not be replicated during device analysis; however, the analysis results are consistent with the reported event.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.It was reported that the proximal part of the subject coil got stretched when it was attempted to be advanced in a microcatheter due to resistance at an unknown location.The procedure was completed successfully using the same microcatheter and another coil.Additional information provided by the customer indicated that no anomalies were noted to the device prior to use on the patient, the device was prepared for use as per the directions for use, continuous flush was set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure, torque was not applied to the delivery wire when operating the coil, the rhv (rotating hemostasis valve) was opened enough to allow passage of the device through without damage when advancing the coil within the microcatheter, the coil was advanced slowly and carefully without excessive force, and the coil was able to move while feeling resistance.Based on the information provided, the device appeared to have been used as intended.It is probable that resistance was encountered when advancing the coil in the microcatheter due to procedural or anatomical factors during device usage which led to the damage observed on the main coil during analysis.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the as reported 'main coil stretched' and 'main coil friction' as well as the as analyzed 'main coil suture damage' and 'main coil broken/fractured during use' since these issues are associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu but due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use the product performance was limited.An assignable cause of handling damage will be assigned to the as analyzed 'coil delivery wire kinked/bent' since this issue is most likely due to handling of the product during the clinical procedure.
|