|
The returned product was received in the provided explant kit in a plastic jar for specimen, it presented one leaflet broken and detached such as the outflow edge of the pyrocarbon orifice was damaged and broken in the same correspondence.Moreover, the suture ring was damaged and some pieces of it were detached.The visual inspection, performed on the cleaned valve, confirmed the absence of manufacturing defects.As per event description, one leaflet and the orifice were damaged due to the manipulation during explantation.The suture ring was carefully removed and the identification of number engraved on the outer surface, in the right side of the housing, allowed the correct component¿s identification and nomenclature.After the valve disassembling, the visual inspection was repeated without highlight to any anomalies/defects both on the pivots cavities in the left side and on the ears of the left leaflet.The device history record review showed that the returned carbomedics top hat ¿ sn (b)(4) satisfied all material, dimensional, and performance standards required for a carbomedics top hat aortic heart valve prosthesis at the time of manufacture and release, including a functional test performed with a hydrodynamic tester performed on (b)(6) 2012.The valve was returned with a leaflet undamaged and still in position, a broken leaflet and a damaged orifice.In particular the breakage on the orifice involved not only a partial chipped area but all its section completely.The undamaged leaflet was found free to move, but in this condition the clearance between the leaflet still in position and the pivot cavities was not representative.A complete kinematic and hydrodynamic simulation of the prosthesis was not possible and the investigation was then limited to the visual inspection.The review of device history records confirmed that the prosthesis sn (b)(4) was conforming to all specifications, at the time of manufacture and release.Due to the returned conditions, it was not possible to give a judgment about the functional behavior of the valve and the investigation was limited to the visual inspection.The visual inspections performed on the returned valve confirmed the absence of manufacturing defects.Based on the performed analysis, the reported event cannot be explained by any preexisting factor intrinsic in the involved device.
|