|
Investigation ¿ evaluation.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions, quality control, specifications, and a visual inspection of the returned device were conducted during the investigation.The visual inspection of the returned package confirmed that the sheath and dilator from the micropuncture transitionless stiffened cannula access set were returned in a used condition for investigation.The dilator was returned bent, the white plastic coating had been peeled from the dilator and was separated approximately 7cm from the distal tip of the device.Additionally, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record showed no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should also be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Furthermore, a supplier investigation was performed as parts of this set are provided by a supplier.The supplier was unable to find anything inconsistent with their lot records that would be associated with the alleged device failure mode.Moreover, reviews of the manufacturer¿s instructions and quality control procedures were conducted, and no gaps were discovered.It should be noted that an ifu is not provided for this device.It was reported that resistance was noted during removal of the device, this is most likely when the damage occurred.The device is packaged with an ifu which states, ¿do not attempt to insert or withdraw the wire guide and/or introducer if resistance is felt.¿.User¿s technique may have been a contributing factor in this failure, however this cannot be confirmed.Based on the information provided and the examination of the returned product, investigation has concluded that a root cause for this event could not be established.We will continue our monitoring of similar complaints and have notified the appropriate personnel of this event.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|