|
The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, frequency analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), applicable fmea documents, labeling, and applicable manufacture records.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a detached dilator hub was confirmed, and the cause was determined to be manufacturing related.One dilator from a microintroducer was returned for investigation.The dilator was received in two pieces.There was a complete separation of the dilator tubing from the hub.The overall length of the dilator tubing was 4.0¿.A microscopic observation revealed anchor marks in the proximal end of the dilator, which were located 1.5mm and 3.5mm from the proximal end of the tubing.A microscopic observation of the molded hub revealed that the dilator insertion depth within the hub was less than the diameter of the dilator tubing.It appears that the anchors were not captured in the molded hub, which could be attributable to an improper position of the dilator tubing on the pins when molding the hub.The complaint sample will be forwarded to the manufacturing facility for further review.A lot history review (lhr) of reau2296 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|
|
Per sales representative, facility reported that the healthcare professional gained access to the patient, placed the wire and proceeded to place the introducer/sheath.When removing the sheath, the introducer was in two pieces.The wand of the introducer was separated from the hub.No injury to the patient reported.
|