|
Date of event was approximated to (b)(6) 2019 as no event date was reported.(b)(6).(b)(4).The analysis of the returned product revealed: the stent was returned with the proximal section (stent shaft) detached; consequently, confirming the reported complaint.It is important to mention the protective tube was not returned in the stent.During product record review the following was performed: the device history record review was performed and no anomalies were observed, the review confirmed that the device met all manufacturing specifications and boston scientific manufacturing processes include extensive inspections to ensure that all finished devices meet specifications.Based in the dhr review, during manufacturing process the units are inspected in order to detect or avoid defects as per cosmetic procedure, bsc, ver ae, however, there is no control in how devices are handled in the field.Additionally, the stent returned without the protective tube, it is evidence of the stent was manipulated.Therefore, the failure found (stent shaft detached) is an issue that could have been generated by the user or due to the interacting of the device with the suture string.The most probable cause of this complaint is adverse event related to procedure since it is the most likely that the adverse event occurred during the preparation and the device had no influence on event.Risk review was performed according with (b)(4), polaris ultra ureteral stent rawb, bsc, at, and no unanticipated or new hazardous situation were found.All compiled information on this investigation determines that the most probable cause is: adverse event related to procedure.No further escalation is required.
|