|
The device was not returned for analysis.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.A conclusive cause for the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal) could not be determined; however, the subsequent unexpected medical intervention (additional therapy/non-surgical treatment) appears to be related to the operational context of the procedure.Patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal the perforation) may be attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, patient anatomical morphology, product size selection, deployment technique, interference from previously deployed devices, or growth of perforation during deployment.In this case, it is possible that growth of the perforation during deployment may have caused the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal); however, based on the limited information provided by the account, this cannot be confirmed.Another graftmaster stent was implanted.It was reported that the graftmaster was deployed with a maximum pressure of 20 atmospheres (atm).It should be noted in the graftmaster instructions for use (ifu) specifies the rated burst pressure (rbp) is 16 atm and clearly states not to exceed the rbp.It is unknown if the ifu deviation contributed to the reported event.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling; therefore, no product-related corrective action will be implemented in this case.
|