|
Evaluation: a review of the following: dimensional verification, review complaint history, review of device history record, review of mi, review of qc, review of specifications, review of trends, visual inspection.A visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.A document based investigation evaluation was also 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 the root cause could not be determined.Since this device is inspected 100% for bends, kinks, adequate joint strength, correct outside dimension and other surface imperfections prior to transport, it is plausible to suggest that the wire guide encountered resistance possibly by an instrument (ureteroscope) during a procedurally related event, thus causing the removal of the coating.A definitive root cause could not be determined.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.
|