(10/3317/213) a review of the device history records indicated that the graft was processed and inspected according to established tests and procedures and no anomaly was found.These tests include a 100% visual inspection of the graft.In addition, no anomaly was evidenced in the collagen coating records.The review of the water permeability testing records of products coated on the same day as the complaint device indicated values well within product specifications.(3340/3345/213) one retention sample coated on the same period and under the same conditions as the complaint device underwent water permeability testing at 120mmhg as per iso 7198.The test result indicated a value well within product specifications.All available information and the testing performed on similar products would tend to indicate that the device was not defective at the time of manufacturing.As reported by the surgeon, the puncture was highly probably caused at the time of use of the device.
|
The unused remaining fragment of the involved device was returned for evaluation.The quality inspection of the fragment performed by our quality assurance supervisor did not evidence any structural abnormality such as hole or drop stitch (textile defect).In addition, the examination performed by the manufacturing textile supervisor confirmed that the observed fragment did not present any structural abnormality.This evaluation confirmed that the reported hole in the implanted graft was of an isolated nature and, as reported by the surgeon, was highly probably caused at the time of use of the device, during surgery.
|