|
Visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported balloon rupture and separation were confirmed.The reported difficulty advancing and removing the device from the anatomy could not be replicated in a testing environment as they were based on operational circumstances.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot revealed there is no indication of a lot specific issue.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, the investigation determined that the reported balloon rupture, separation, difficulty advancing and removing the device and unexpected medical intervention appear to be related to operational context.There was no leak noted to the balloon during preparation or during the initial 4-5 inflations, which suggests a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported difficulties.It was reported by the account that the armada 35 device interacted with the patient¿s challenging anatomy resulting in the reported difficulty advancing the device and subsequently the balloon ruptured during inflation.In addition, the ruptured balloon material likely interacted with the patient¿s anatomy during removal, resulting in the reported difficulty removing the device and upon further manipulation, the balloon and inner member ultimately separated.Additional treatment with a snare device was performed to remove the separated portion of the device.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|