|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes) system there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual inspection, the subject microcatheter was returned with a stent deployed within the lumen at the proximal end.The subject microcatheter shaft was able to be flushed.The stent was unable to be removed from the subject microcatheter.Resistance was noted when advancing a 0.0158" patency mandrel distal to where the stent was located, the subject microcatheter was cut at the resistance area and what appeared to be polytetrafluoroethylene (ptfe) was removed.For functional inspection, a 0.023" pin gauge was verified to meet the subject microcatheter shaft when inserted into the subject microcatheter hub.A 0.0158" patency mandrel was able to be advanced through the subject microcatheter, resistance was noted.The reported event is covered in the device direction 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 defect was confirmed based on analysis of the device.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 indicated that the device was prepared for use as per the directions for use, there was no damage noted to the packaging prior to opening the packaging, the device confirmed to be in good condition during preparation/prior to use on the patient and continuous flush was set up and maintained throughout the clinical procedure.It was reported that the overall delivery process of the stent did not feel smooth.When the stent entered the subject microcatheter, it could not be advanced further.Upon inspection, it was found that the stent had deployed inside the microcatheter.During analysis, the subject microcatheter was returned with a stent deployed within the lumen at the proximal end.The microcatheter shaft was able to be flushed.The stent was unable to be removed from the microcatheter.Resistance was noted when advancing a 0.0158" patency mandrel distal to where the stent was located, the microcatheter was cut at the resistance area and what appeared to be ptfe was removed.Based on a review of all available information and the analysis of the returned device it is probable that the microcatheter shaft was damaged during manipulation of the device during the procedure when resistance was encountered transferring the stent.It is probable that there may have been movement of the stent introducer sheath during the transfer attempt, causing the difficulty to transfer the stent.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the reported/analysed 'catheter shaft friction' as well as the analysed 'nv - catheter ptfe inner lining peeling' as these issues are associated with a product that meets stryker design and manufacture specifications and was used in according with the dfu but due to procedural and/or anatomical factors during use, the product performance was limited.
|