|
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 device has not been returned to the manufacturer, at this time, for evaluation.A lot history review (lhr) of huye1168 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.Device not yet returned for evaluation.
|
|
The complaint of a leak was confirmed, but the exact cause was unknown.The observed damage could be associated with multiple factors.One 9 fr d/l hickman catheter was returned for investigation.The d/l tubing extended 2cm from the bifurcation.The remainder of the d/l catheter was not returned for investigation.A functional test revealed a leak in the d/l tubing when the lumen with the white connector (small lumen) was pressurized.A microscopic examination revealed a longitudinal split in the tubing.The split appeared to be jagged and granular.The catheter was cut perpendicular to the axis of the tubing just distal to the split and just distal to the bifurcation.The split was located in the small lumen where the wall thickness was at a minimum.The small lumen appeared to be off center.The minimum wall thickness was found to be 0.0155¿, which is below the specification.It is possible that the catheter split open during use when the lumen was pressurized; however, the infusion pressure at the time the catheter burst was unknown.Infusion pressures should never exceed 25 psi.A review of the manufacturing records showed that 100% of lot huye1168 was leak tested at pressures higher than 25 psi and no parts were rejected.Therefore, it was determined that the catheter functioned for the pressure to which it was designed.The catheter was reportedly used for more than 2 months before the leak was detected and damage most likely occurred during use from overpressurization.Since the wall thickness was considered a potential contributing factor, the complaint sample was forwarded to the manufacturing facility for further review.Per manufacturing and lhr evaluation, performed at the manufacturing facility, the reported condition was not confirmed as manufacturing related.No assembly processes other than the dacron placement are performed to the single lumen located below the bifurcate.In addition to this, as per lhr documentation review, it was confirmed that no defective units were identified during the control inspections performed during the leak test, flushing process and catheter inspection, which also rules out the condition being related to supplier.This is also confirmed since the reported unit was used for two (2) months prior nonconformance occurred.Since no processes are performed to material that can contribute to the condition found, the most probable root cause is not considered to be manufacturing related.
|