Manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was conducted and there was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Visual inspection: the sample was not returned; therefore, a visual inspection could not be performed.Functional/performance evaluation: the sample was not returned; therefore, a functional/performance evaluation could not be performed.Medical records review: medical records were not provided; therefore, a review could not be performed.Image/photo review: based on the images provided, a mri breast image demonstrated an artifact was digitally measured at 13mm within a large mass, can be confirmed.Conclusion: although the sample was not returned for evaluation, two images were provided for review.Based on the image review, the investigation is confirmed for the reported issue, as an artifact was identified in the mri images provided.Per the reported event details, the biopsy clip was visualized under mri imaging.The current ifu states, "mr image quality may be compromised if the area of interest is in the exact same area or relatively close to the position of the ultraclip dual trigger breast tissue marker.Therefore, it may be necessary to optimize mr imaging parameters for the presence of this metallic implant." it is possible that procedural issues and/or imaging techniques contributed to the reported event.However, based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: the current instructions for use (ifu) provides general instructions for use of the device, as well as warnings, precautions, and potential complications associated with the device.
|
It was reported that during a pre-operative mri scan, the artifact from the breast marker was allegedly larger than expected (13mm in diameter).It was further reported that the carcinoma was larger than the artifact; therefore, the artifact did not cause any patient complications.Reportedly the marker remains implanted and there was no patient injury.
|