|
Corrected data: common name: wire, guide, catheter, product code: dqx, preamendment.Investigation - evaluation: a review of dimensional verification, complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, manufacturing instructions, visual inspection, specifications, and quality control data was conducted during the investigation.Visual inspection of the returned device was performed.One tscf-35-80-3, was returned in the used and damaged condition with the distal weld absent from the mandrel and coil.There are two large radii bends; it is unknown whether the bends were created by the physician intentionally to facilitate the procedure, were a result of the patient anatomy, or were introduced after the procedure due to shipping and handling without any protective holder.These bends are located 13.5 cm and 21.5 cm from the proximal end of the wire.The distal end of the wire is damaged such that the distal weld is missing, and the coil has separated from the distal portion of the mandrel and is partially unraveled.A portion of the coil appears to be missing, although it is difficult to confirm dimensions based on the unraveled condition.The mandrel core is protruding and is curved in multiple planes like a helix.The intact portion of the coil was elongated, and we are unable to determine the length of the missing portion of the coil, although it does not appear to be completely intact on the returned device.No dimensions were found to be out of specification.The device history record was reviewed for lot#7766379, and two non-conformances were recorded within the manufacturing department.These nonconformances were recorded for "pulled out while gaging" and "loose dirt".The two items that pulled out while gaging were scrapped (discarded), and the four devices containing loose foreign matter were reworked and verified prior to additional processing.To date, a further search of our trackwise records revealed this complaint to be the only reported complaint associated to the complaint lot number (7766379).Based on current information and further review of this complaint, it is feasible to suggest that "off label" use of the tscf-35-80-3 was the cause of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and we will continue to monitor for similar complaints.
|