(b)(4).An analysis of the product could not be performed since a physical sample was not received for evaluation.As part of our company quality system process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and distributed to approved specifications.However, if the product is received at a later date, the investigation will be updated as applicable.The device history records were reviewed and certed by external manufacturing that the manufacturing criteria were met prior to the release of the equipment.The certificate records are accessible through external manufacturing.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: was there any patient consequence? burns to the lungs if so, was any treatment administered? unknown.Patient was transferred to the burn unit.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent: what does the operating surgeon believe to be the alleged deficiency of the megadyne devices used in the procedure?.What end effector was used?.Was any sparking or arcing seen in the procedure?.Was the patient¿s post-op care altered in any way due the issue?.Was there any medical or surgical intervention for the burns to the lungs?.What was the proximity of the end effector activation to the source of the oxygen?.
|