|
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.(b)(4).Investigation - evaluation a review of the complaint history, drawings, device history record, manufacturing instructions, quality control and visual inspection of the returned device was conducted during the investigation.Visual examination of the returned device confirmed the hub separated from the dilator shaft.The amount of flare on the proximal end of the shaft was very small, however, the device passed the qc inspections in place at the time of manufacture.It was reported that the patient's anatomy was not tortuous or calcified.The complaint device was returned therefore, an 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 and the detection activities performed; the connection between the hub and dilator shaft could have been affected during shipping and handling, storage, or product use.However, a definitive root cause could not be determined.
|