|
The treating physician commented that the balloon could not be seen inflating on angio images, which indicated the possibility of the alleged rupture/damage prior to use.Evaluation- the following methods of assessment were utilized: review of complaint history, review of device history record, review of drawing, review of ifu, review of qc, review of specifications and a visual inspection of the complaint device was conducted.During inspection of the device there was no visual damage noted to the balloon or the catheter shaft.Dried contrast was noted inside the balloon.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not manufactured to current specifications.There is no evidence to suggest all items in the lot or similar devices in the field are nonconforming or defective.There is no evidence the device was damaged at the time of opening as evidenced by the attempted use of the product by the customer.According to the physician, the balloon burst prior to reaching 8atm.The burst rate is 16atm.However, there is no mention of the method used for inflation of the device.Also, it is not known if the device used to measure the balloon inflation has been calibrated.The evaluation of the product reveals no visual damage noted to the balloon or the catheter shaft.Based upon the information provided and the characteristics displayed, it is plausible to suggest that this incident was technique related or handling related.Therefore, a definitive root cause could not be determined.The root cause of this complaint is inconclusive.We will continue to monitor for similar events.
|