|
Device was returned for additional evaluation and investigation.A review of the device history record, which includes verification of all steps in the manufacturing of the pump, verification of all final testing performed by/on the pump, verification of sterilization, and packaging for subject pump was performed.The review did not identify any non-conformances, issues or capas associated with pump function.Additional physical investigation was performed on the device, but the alleged issue could not be confirmed.Visual inspection of the pump did not find any exterior anomalies.Functional analysis of the pump confirmed the pump successfully primed and flowed within design specifications.A root cause for the alleged issue could not be determined.Internal complaint number: (b)(4).
|
|
Reporter contacted technical solutions to inquire about sending an explanted pump back.Reporter stated that the pump was explanted by the physician due to an underinfusion volume discrepancy noted by a nurse two months prior.Reporter stated that 1.2 ml were expected at the refill and 13 ml were actually aspirated.The reporter did not have further information on patient symptoms, mris, or accidents.
|