|
(b)(4).Investigation - evaluation : a review of the complaint history, drawings, dimensional verification, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, trends, quality control and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned device reported one (1) used/damaged sheath was returned with the hub separated.Four (4) hemostat marks were observed on the sheath tubing: 1, 2.5, 14.3, and 25.5 cm from the hub.There were no signs of significant damage to the flare.A go no-go flare gauge was used to verify that the flare size was manufactured to specification.The connector cap was found to accept a 0.139 in pin gauge.A document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.Review of device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Based on the information provided, examination of the returned device and the results of our investigation, it is feasible to suggest that the hub had separated from the sheath due to the device being manufactured with an inappropriate sized connector cap.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the health risk assessment no further action is required.
|