Manufacturer date: 10/20/2014.Method: no product was returned.Asp investigation summary: the investigation included a review of the device history record, trending of the product malfunction codes and lot number, failure mode and effects analysis, and health hazard evaluation.The dhr was reviewed and the involved lot met manufacturer specifications at the time of release.No anomalies were observed that would contribute to the customer's experienced issue.Trending analysis for the product code of 'suspected positive bi" was reviewed from (b)(4) 2013 through (b)(4) 2014.The risk is categorized as ¿low." trending analysis for the product code of ''load not recalled" was reviewed from (b)(4) 2013 through (b)(4) 2014.The risk is categorized as "low." trending analysis by lot number was reviewed from (b)(4) 2014.There were no similar incidents within this time frame.The fmea was reviewed and indicates that the rpn associated for the failure mode is at an acceptable level.The hhe was reviewed for the risk of using instruments from a load with a positive bi result which leaves a potential risk of the load not being successfully sterilized, thus could potentially transfer pathogens to patients.Each sterilization cycle is also monitored with physical parameters and chemical indicators.For the general population, the body¿s defense mechanisms make the chance for any organisms to establish into the body and cause infection to be relatively rare, especially factoring in the frequent use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to surgery.If a patient were to become infected, medical intervention would be required to resolve the infection.It is unlikely for an infection to occur; however, should it occur it could be significant for patients at greater risk.The product malfunction code of "load not recalled" was added because the customer did not successfully recall all items in the load.It is not related to a functional failure of the product.Further investigation into this issue is not required since the code is used for medwatch reporting purposes.Thirty-four (34) retains bis were subject to functional evaluation.Thirty-two bis met specification as no growth was observed after incubation.Also, no damage or leakage was observed with the retains.User error is the most likely cause of this issue and was self-identified by the customer.It is unlikely the suspected positive bi was caused by a performance issue as the retains met functional specification, dhr review found no anomalies that would contribute to a positive bi result, and lot history review found no significant trend in this lot.Sterrad® performance is also unlikely as the cycle passed and the customer indicated that subsequent bis were negative for growth.The severity of the suspected positive bi was defined as ¿negligible.¿ tracking and trending data has not identified a trend that requires investigation.As a result, root cause evaluation will not be performed.The cyclesure® retains met functional specification.As a result, there is not an issue with product performance when used per the ifu.The customer will educate staff on proper use.The issue will continue to be tracked and trended.
|