Evaluation summary: no sample was returned, therefore, the condition of the product could not be verified and visual inspection cannot be performed.The device history record (dhr) for the batch was reviewed.The product was released according to manufacturer's release criteria.Because a sample was not returned, the root cause cannot be determined.The root cause will be reassessed upon completing the investigation.Additional information has been requested.(b)(4).
|
Product evaluation: the customer reported that 'the device felt occluded, it was removed and replaced during same procedure'.Sample was returned for investigation, including the shunt and the eds (separately).Some light blockages were seen in initial inner illumination.Therefore, the reported complaint was confirmed.After cleaning the shunt, openings on both sides of the restriction unit were seen with no interruptions; therefore, there is no indication for manufacturing related factors that could cause the blockage.The device history record (dhr) for the batch was reviewed.No abnormalities were found during the dhr review and the product was released according to release criteria.During production, 100% final inspection is being performed on the entire batch, including visual inspection and inner illumination.If a blockage would be noticed, the product would have been rejected immediately.Due to all of the above, one may conclude that the blockage was formed after the product left the manufacturing plant.The root cause is inconclusive ¿ no root cause identified, as the blockage could have been caused by many different reasons during and after the clinical procedure.Since openings were seen on both sides of the restriction unit, there is no indication for an inherent defect that might have caused the event.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|