(b)(4).A review of the complaint history, instruction for use (ifu), documentation, specifications and quality control was conducted during the investigation.This case was reviewed by outside professional clinical review.The clinical opinion was that it is ¿reasonable to suggest that this was due to the procedure/technique of the healthcare professional and as a result patient ended up in intensive therapy unit (itu) with sepsis.This was an additional intervention done to remove the balloon.¿ the device is shipped with an instruction for use that instructs to avoid puncturing the balloon while suturing for a transabdominal placement of the device.In addition, the ifu advises to not use the device if there is doubt as to whether the product is sterile.The complaint device was not returned therefore, no physical examinations could be performed; however, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record was not possible as the lot number was not supplied.Based on the information provided, no product returned and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be determined.Based on the provided level of information it is feasible that user technique contributed to this incident; however, a definitive root cause cannot be determined or reported at this time.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.
|