|
A visual inspection was performed on the returned device.The reported tip deformation was not confirmed; however, the tip was returned separated which is likely what the account identified as deformation.The reported shaft separation was confirmed.A corrective and preventative actions (capa) review was performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Based on the information provided, a definitive cause for the reported issue could not be determined.The reported tip deformation was not confirmed; however, it is likely the account identified the observed tip separation as deformation.Factors that could contribute to tip separations include, but are not limited to, damage during manufacturing, inadvertent mishandling during unpackaging of the device, sheath/stylet removal, preparation, or during use of the device.The proximal portion of the delivery system was not returned and the account indicated the separation occurred during preparation of the device.Factors that may contribute to material separation (proximal shaft) include, but are not limited to, kinks or bends, inadvertent mishandling, user technique, interaction with difficult anatomy and/or accessory devices.Analysis of the returned device confirmed the reported material separation.In this case, it is possible that mishandling of the device contributed to the reported material separation.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.
|
|
It was reported that during preparation of the 3.0x38mm esprit btk system, when removing the protective sheath, the device was compromised.During the attempt to insert the guide wire it was the tip was kinked.The hypotube shaft separated.There was no patient involvement and no clinically significant delay in the procedure.No additional information was provided.
|