|
A visual inspection and dimensional analysis were performed on the returned device.The reported difficulty to remove was not able to be confirmed, but the reported material separation was able to be confirmed.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.Information from the field stated that continued removal force was used during the imaging catheter¿s withdrawal upon experiencing resistance during the imaging catheter¿s attempted removal.The opstar instruction for use (ifu) warns that ¿if resistance is noted during withdrawal of the dragonfly opstar imaging catheter¿ to first ¿stop manipulation and evaluate under fluoroscopy¿ and ¿if the cause of resistance cannot be determined or mitigated, carefully remove the dragonfly opstar imaging catheter and guide wire as a unit from the patient¿.In this case, it was determined that the user continuing to attempt imaging catheter removal against resistance and not removing the guidewire and imaging catheter as a unit upon resistance, caused the reported and confirmed material separation.Based on the reported information and the observations from the returned analysis, the investigation determined that the reported difficulty to remove which resulted in separation of the distal tip appears to be related to user error.The catheter was returned with torn guidewire exit notch and exchange rail which resulted in a separation, which are consistent with the reported material separation as well as effects of the reported difficulty to remove.Based on the results of the complaint investigation there is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to the design, manufacture, or labeling of the device.
|