The plant has reviewed this batch from a manufacturing and technical perspective.No quality issues were identified upon this review of batch records, release testing data or, inspection of retained samples.Retained samples met the product description and the product is within expiration date.After a review of the batch thermal records, thermal results all met product release criteria.Consumer alleges wrap was too hot.The cause of the alleged wrap being too hot is inconclusive since review of records does not provide evidence to support defective product.The product effect may vary with each individual.
|
Burn with blisters [burns second degree].Case description: this is a spontaneous report from a contactable other hcp and product quality group.A (b)(6) female patient of an unspecified ethnicity started to receive thermacare heatwrap (thermacare lower back and hip) (lot#: l75977) on an unspecified date for 8 hours daytime for an unspecified indication.The patient's medical history was not reported, she does not suffer from diabetes mellitus.The patient's concomitant medications were not reported.The patient experienced burn with blisters on an unspecified date with outcome of unknown.The action taken in response to the event for thermacare heatwrap was unknown.Investigation summary received from the product quality group included: the plant has reviewed this batch from a manufacturing and technical perspective.No quality issues were identified upon this review of batch records, release testing data or, inspection of retained samples.Retained samples met the product description and the product is within expiration date.After a review of the batch thermal records, thermal results all met product release criteria.Consumer alleges wrap was too hot.The cause of the alleged wrap being too hot is inconclusive since review of records does not provide evidence to support defective product.The product effect may vary with each individual.Additional information has been requested and will be provided as it becomes available.Company clinical evaluation comment: based on the information provided, the event burn blister as described in this case is considered serious bodily injury potentially requiring medical intervention to prevent permanent damage or impairment of body structure, assessed as associated with the use of the device.This case meets initial/final 10-day eu and 30-day fda reportability.Case comment: based on the information provided, the event burn blister as described in this case is considered serious bodily injury potentially requiring medical intervention to prevent permanent damage or impairment of body structure, assessed as associated with the use of the device.This case meets initial/final 10-day eu and 30-day fda reportability.Evaluation summary: the plant has reviewed this batch from a manufacturing and technical perspective.No quality issues were identified upon this review of batch records, release testing data or, inspection of retained samples.Retained samples met the product description and the product is within expiration date.After a review of the batch thermal records, thermal results all met product release criteria.Consumer alleges wrap was too hot.The cause of the alleged wrap being too hot is inconclusive since review of records does not provide evidence to support defective product.The product effect may vary with each individual.
|