|
As reported, after opening the outer package of the aviator plus.014 5.0x20 142cm, it was found that the inner package of the balloon product was not well sealed.The product was stored in the hospital equipment cabinet, and the barcode on the outer packaging is removed and pasted on the patient surgical information record file when used.In this case, there was no trace of the barcode that had been removed before the outer packaging was opened.There was no reported patient injury.The balloon was replaced with another balloon.The intended procedure was a balloon dilation of pulmonary hypertension.The device was stored in the lab in a constant temperature and humidity equipment cabinet.The product will be returned for evaluation.
|
|
Complaint conclusion: as reported, after opening the outer package of the aviator plus.014 5.0 x 20 142cm, it was found that the inner package of the balloon product was not well sealed.The product was stored in the hospital equipment cabinet, and the barcode on the outer packaging is removed and pasted on the patient surgical information record file when used.In this case, there was no trace of the barcode that had been removed before the outer packaging was opened.There was no reported patient injury.The balloon was replaced with another balloon.The intended procedure was a balloon dilation of pulmonary hypertension.The device was stored in the lab in a constant temperature and humidity equipment cabinet.One product was returned for analysis.A non-sterile packaging/pouch/box of an aviator plus.014 5.0 x 20 142cm, along with a 30g flushing needle inside a separated plastic tube was received for analysis inside a plastic bag.Per visual analysis, the aviator balloon was received out from its coiled protective tubing.Also, it was observed that the packaging outer box was ripped- opened at the labeled side (as expected), and the packaging inner pouch was found not sealed at the bottom of the pouch the way it should, as expected per ppe specification.Per microscopic analysis, the unsealed pouch was inspected under the vision system with a particular focus on the pouch bottom area looking for any seal pattern marks.None were observed.A product history record (phr) review of lot 82214871 revealed no anomalies or non-conformances during the manufacturing and inspection processes that can be associated with the reported event.The reported ¿packaging/pouch/box compromised sterility - seal open¿ was confirmed via device analysis.However, the exact cause cannot be determined.According to microscopic analysis of the returned packaging, no seal pattern markings were present on the bottom portion of the pouch as expected.Therefore, it appears the reported events are related to the manufacturing process.According to the warnings in the instructions for use, ¿do not use if inner package is opened or damaged.¿ the product analysis suggests that the event experienced by the customer may be associated to the manufacturing process; therefore, a risk assessment has been initiated for further investigation.
|