|
Due to the automated mes (manufacturing execution system) system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.The subject device was not available; therefore, a visual inspection as well as a functional evaluation could not be performed.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 complaint could not be confirmed, and it could not be definitively determined if the device failed to meet specifications because the product was not returned.It was noted that the issue occurred "during the deployment of the stent, not after complete deployment.After complete deployment, everything looked great.Additional information also stated "this case came out absolutely great and was landed perfectly in the supraclinoid region, exactly where we needed it." additional information provided by the customer indicated the device was prepared for use as per the dfu.Continuous flush was set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure.The patient¿s anatomy was very tortuous.Type 4 genu.Distal landing, at terminus, pushed more distal into m1 while pushing wire/loading in supraclinoid region.This was noted during the deployment of the stent, not after complete deployment.After complete deployment, everything looked great.The action taken due to the reported distal landing was the md quickly pulled the device back into place and continued with the case.This was feedback and not a complaint.In the physician¿s opinion, the reason for the issue was he felt they may have loaded slightly too much but also did not think it was enough to move the stent.The physician doesn¿t feel that the anatomy and/or location of intended area of treatment may have contributed to the reported event as they had good support and only landed in the straight segment of the ica (internal carotid artery) supraclinoid region.There were difficulties encountered during preparation/transferring/advancement /deployment of the subject device, that could have contributed to reported issue.The first stent they transferred from sheath to hub seemed to have been stuck in the catheter and then deployed in the hub.Second time around it went smoothly.This first stent/catheter was sent in for testing.Both forms refer to the same incident in the same patient.The procedure was completed successfully.Stent was successfully delivered from ica terminus to periophthalmic region.The patient was not affected as a result of the event.There was no surgical delay due to this event.While there are a number of potential causes for the reported issue, because review and analysis of available information failed to identify a definitive cause, a cause of undeterminable was assigned to the reported issue ¿stent failed/unable to open¿ and 'unexpected movement of device'.
|