|
(b)(4).The analysis of the returned product revealed: the returned stent was found with the shaft break/separated; consequently, confirming the reported complaint.The suture was not returned for analysis during product record review the following was performed: a dhr review was performed and no related deviations within manufacturing processes were found.Risk review passing results: a risk review of the polaris ultra stent 5fx24cm w/o wire was completed, polaris ultra ureteral stent rawb, bsc, at and confirmed that the event of the ar stent shaft break was defined in the risk documentation.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Based in the dhr review, during manufacturing process the units are inspected in order to detect or avoid defects, cosmetic procedure, bsc, ver ae, package inspect and label accountability, bsc, ver bt, however, there is no control in how devices are handled in the field.Therefore, the failures found (stent break/separated) is 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.All compiled information on this investigation determines that the most probable cause is: adverse event related to procedure.
|