|
It was reported that the microcatheter (subject device) was used in the treatment of opthalmic artery aneurysm procedure.After the stent was advanced to the midsection of the subject microcatheter, resistance was encountered.The physician then increased the pushing force resulting in fracture to the hub of the subject device.The subject device was then withdrawn and replaced, and the procedure was reported to be completed successfully without any clinical consequence to the patient.However, when the subject device was returned for analysis the shaft of the subject device was observed to be kinked/bent, flat/crushed and had friction at the damaged sections.Also, the shaft of the subject device was noted to be broken/fractured.
|
|
Due to the automated manufacturing execution system (mes) there are controls in the manufacturing process to ensure the product met specifications upon release.During visual inspection, the catheter shaft was noted to be kinked/bent.The catheter shaft was noted to be flat/crushed.The catheter shaft was broken/fractured under the primary strain relief.As a part of functional inspection, a 0.027" pin gauge was inserted into the catheter hub without issue.The catheter could not be flushed as the catheter shaft was broken at the hub.A 0.0265" patency mandrel was advanced through the microcatheter, resistance was encountered in areas of damage.The reported event of 'catheter hub broken/fractured' could not be replicated.However, the analysis results are consistent with the reported event.The reported event of 'catheter shaft friction' was confirmed.The reported complaint was confirmed based on analysis.The device failed to meet specifications when received for complaint investigation based on the analyzed anomalies noted to the device.The reported event is covered in the device directions 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.It was reported that during stent delivery, the stent encountered resistance after being delivered to the mid-segment of the subject microcatheter.The physician continued to push, and the resistance increased.The physician increased the pushing force to attempt advancement, at which point the hub of the microcatheter fractured.Based on a review of all available information and the analysis of the returned device it is probable that manipulation of the device due resistance would have caused the damage noted during analysis.The complaint was reported for hub broken/fracture; however, the location of the fracture on the catheter shaft would have been perceived as hub fracture.An assignable cause of procedural factors will be assigned to the reported event of 'catheter hub broken/fractured' and the reported and analysed event of 'catheter shaft friction' as well as the analysed events of 'catheter shaft kinked/bent', 'catheter shaft flat/crushed', and 'catheter shaft broken/fractured' as the issue is 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.
|