|
Due to the automated mes (manufacturing execution system) there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual inspection, the subject main coil was seen to be detached.There were no anomalies noted to the main coil.During functional inspection main coil failed/unable to detach functional test ¿ fail, the main coil was returned detached.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 was not confirmed based on analysis.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.Additional information provided by the customer, the device was prepared for use as per the direction for use (dfu).There was no damage noted to the packaging prior to opening the packaging.The device was confirmed to be in good condition during preparation/ prior to use on the patient.Continuous flush was set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure.When the 7th coil was positioned in the target site and detachment was attempted using in-zone.However, the coil could not be detached.After repeating "long beep twice, confirm the failure of detachment under fluoroscopy, and re-positioning the coil again" three times, the coil was removed from the sl-10 hub.During analysis the main coil was returned detached.There were no other anomalies noted.Based on the review of all available information, an assignable cause of not confirmed will be assigned to the as reported (ar) 'main coil failed/unable to detach as the defect was not confirmed, the main coil was already detached.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to as analyzed (aa) ¿main coil prematurely detached/separated during use¿ as these defects are 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 and/or anatomical factors during use.
|
|
The coil (subject device) was returned for analysis, and it was discovered that the main coil (subject device) was returned detached.The subject device was replaced, and the procedure was completed successfully.No clinical consequences were reported to the patient due to this event.
|