|
Additional field: b5, h6.Corrected field: g2.Customer reported that the 5mm x 22mm icast covered stent delivery system was attempted to be deployed in a smaller accessory renal artery measuring 4.5mm.The stent had to traverse through a fenestrated cook de alpha graft that was modified.It is unknown what modifications were made to the endograft.The device in question was returned for evaluation, and the balloon appeared to be partially inflated especially on the proximal end of the balloon.To determine if there was a leak in the balloon a 20cc syringe was filled with 10cc of water and the balloon pressurized.A fine stream of water could be seen leaking at the distal end of the balloon.The leak was located where the end of the crimped stent meets the balloon.Based on the images taken of the defect it appears that the balloon was damaged at some point during the procedure.Possibly on a fixation barb or possibly the fenestration ring going into the renal artery.It is not known if the fenestration into the renal artery was where the graft was modified, but if it was this may explain the balloon puncture.The device history records show that this crimped stent product was built in april 2025.An implementation of a post stent crimping leak check was added to the process in july 2024.It is likely a leak of this size would have been identified in the process of manufacturing.Based on the details of the complaint and the investigation the complaint has been confirmed but a product deficiency cannot be confirmed as it is likely the balloon was damaged during the procedure.A contemporaneous sample from inventory was not requested as the clinical conditions experienced would be impossible to duplicate on the bench.Based on the investigation the most likely root cause is that the balloon was punctured during the procedure, but this cannot be confirmed, as such the root cause is impossible to define.A review of the device history records shows that there were no non-conformances noted, and the product met all quality and performance requirements.There is no indication that a design, manufacturing specification, test method, manufacturing process, equipment or raw material was the cause of the complaint.A recurring lot number query was conducted for l/n 523052 and there have been no other complaints associated with the production lot of finished goods.A historical review of capa and ncrs was completed, which did not identify any issues directly related to this complaint.A complaint history review did identify several related complaints involving balloon burst, which were associated with procedure complications that resulted in the rupture of the balloon of the catheter.A risk review found that the risk management documents for this product adequately address the reported defect and the severity and anticipated occurrence level are appropriate.Based on the information provided in the complaint, the review of the returned product and device history records review there is no evidence to conclude that the device was faulty or manufactured improperly.It is likely the balloon was ruptured on the endograft that was modified by the physician for the procedure, but this cannot be confirmed and therefore the root cause is impossible to define.
|