|
This mdr is being submitted past the 30 day reporting requirement as part of a retrospective review of the report that was initiated during an fda inspection.A retrospective review of the complaint record determined that this report should have been submitted as a malfunction report.In this case, no patient injury occurred; however, this may be likely to cause or contribute to a serious injury if it recurred.Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, drawings, dimensional verification, instructions for use (ifu), trends, quality control and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was returned in a used and damaged condition; the cap was separated from the sheath.There was no visible damage to the flare or the rest of the complaint device, such as stretching of the coils or wrinkling of the flare.A document based investigation evaluation was performed.The device is shipped with an instruction for use (ifu) that describes the intended use, specific items are addressed such as: "withdraw the sheath and dilator as a unit." based on the information provided, examination of the returned device and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be determined.
|