|
It was initially reported that during introduction, the subject coil device became stuck within the microcatheter.Subsequent analysis of the returned coil device revealed that it had prematurely detached during use.The subject coil was replaced with a new device, and the procedure was completed successfully with no reported clinical consequences to the patient.
|
|
Device history record review: 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 analysis, the returned coil device (subject device) revealed that the subject coil delivery wire was kinked/ bent.The main coil was seen to be stretched and within the hub and the suture was damaged.The main coil was seen to be detached.The reported complaint was confirmed during analysis.The reported event is covered in the device directions for use (dfu).Also, the risk of the reported event is documented in the risk documentation and there are current controls to mitigate the risk of the reported event.Based on a review of all available information and the analysis of the returned device it is probable that the subject coil got stretched and got stuck in the catheter hub.This led to the subject coil detaching from the delivery wire.The as reported ¿coil jammed¿ was confirmed based on the analysis and the as reported as well as the as analyzed ¿main coil stretched¿, ¿coil jammed¿, ¿main coil suture damage¿ and ¿main coil prematurely detached/separated during use¿ will be assigned procedural factor as it appears to be associated with a product that met stryker design and manufacturing specifications and was used in accordance with the dfu, but performance was limited due to procedural factors during use.The as analyzed ¿coil delivery wire kinked bent' will be assigned handling damage as this complaint appears to be associated with handling of the product or portion of the product during the procedure.
|