|
Manufacturing review: per the lot history review, this is the 1st complaint reported for this lot number and issue within the cfa period.The quantity affected is 1.Based upon the severity level and lot quantity, a dhr review is not required.However, the dhr was requested to review manufacturing records.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, nursing guide, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.Investigation summary: one 7fr introducer, one 7fr sheath, and one guidewire was returned for evaluation.Visual, tactual, functional, and microscopic evaluations were performed.The investigation is confirmed for dilator tip damage, as the device clearly manifested damage and protrusion on the dilator tip, along with wrinkling of the sheath and breakage of the guidewire and knotting of its tip.The straight, proximal end of the guidewire could be passed through the introducer.The definitive root cause could not be determined based upon available information.The original cause of the sequence of events is not certain based on the returned sample and the report.However, the customer reports that introducer damage occurred prior to the guidewire ¿folding.¿ if the dilator tip damage occurred first, the breakage and knotting of the guidewire may have resulted if significant, repetitive force were applied by the clinician.While the original source of the damage to the dilator tip is uncertain, possibilities include forceful insertion against the guidewire, damage/malformation prior to insertion, insufficient skin nick, insertion technique, and excessive force.
|