|
E1: initial reporter facility name: (b)(6).E1: initial reporter phine: (b)(6).Device evaluated by mfr: the filterwire was returned for analysis.The wire returned inside the delivery sheath and the filter bag came back in undeployed state.It is possible to observed that the spring tip was bent and stretched.Sheathing/unsheathing test was performed, and the filter bag can be retracted/deployed by normal way.With the available information, boston scientific concludes: investigation results summary: product return status: the device was returned for analysis.Device/media analysis: during its analysis, the functional inspection passed because sheathing/unsheathing test was performed, and the filter bag can be retracted/deployed by normal way, which not confirms the reported filterwire difficult/failure to capture/retrieve filter.Additionally, the visual inspection failed because the spring tip was bent and stretched, which could not have contributed to the reported code.Device history record (dhr) review: it was confirmed this device met manufacturing specification prior to distribution and there were no manufacturing deviations which could have contributed to the reported event.Risk review: a risk review was completed and confirmed that the event of filterwire difficult/failure to capture/retrieve filter, spring tip bent/kinked and stretched were defined in the risk documentation and is documented accordingly in the prr.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Investigation conclusion: boston scientific concludes the most probable root cause is "device problem excluded".This cause code was selected because the wire returned inside the delivery sheath and the filter bag came back in undeployed state and the sheathing/unsheathing test was performed, and the filter bag can be retracted/deployed by normal way.The bent and the stretch in the spring tip is related to excessive handling of the device and the technique used by the doctor in procedure, which could possibly have affected the performance and integrity of the device.Therefore, the problem found is classified as "adverse event related to procedure".Moreover, a device history record (dhr) review was conducted and no deviations that could have contributed to the reported event were found.All compiled information on this investigation determines that conclusion code is "device problem excluded", since the functional inspection passed and the sheathing/unsheathing test was performed.
|