No additional information was provided.This remediation mdr was generated under protocol (b)(4), as a result of warning letter cms#: (b)(4).No lot number was provided; therefore, a device history record (dhr) review could not be completed on the actual suspect device.Since no lot number was provided, a dhr review was performed on the two most recent orders for the part number: from 2 lots for a quantity of (b)(4) units, manufactured on 16-jul-2018 and on 29-aug-2018.The returned complaint samples were visually inspected by the naked eye under normal plant lighting.Both devices appeared to have been used.The print on the returned samples was very light and in some areas it was worn away.The devices were inspected per the template for the part number.One matched the template and the other did not.The 1b measurement (i.E., the part of the device that is inserted into the stoma) for the shafts was different.The 1a measurement (i.E., the part of the device that extends outside the body) was the same for both devices.As part of final inspection, the devices are inspected and measurements recorded for the obturator protrusion, shaft length (1a and 1b), and print clarity and accuracy.All required inspections passed by meeting the specifications identified on the prescription template and by meeting additional manufacturing requirements.The returned devices were determined not to be the same part number.The device with the shorter 1b measurement is not of the same part number.That device also is the one with the length measurement worn and not readable.Since there is no evidence in the reviewed dhr documents to support that a device was built with the incorrect length, it is hypothesized that the one device was switched in a clinical setting where multiple products are being reprocessed.The root cause of the issue could not be determined.
|