|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: how was the product purchased? local brand protection team purchased on line.Is there an indication of how the product was distributed? no.Is there any indication of the source? no.Based on the packaging, is there any indication of which market the original genuine product may have come from? no.Was the device used on a patient? if so, was there any patient consequence? no.Investigation summary: visual inspection was conducted on two box that product code 1962, lot scb3951.Further analysis was performed to determine if the complaint represented a suspected product.According to the results, the device was consistent in construction with surgicel.The device was consistent with surgicel by ftir.The device is consistent with surgicel fibrillar.All packages from the same line from this box had different time-stamps.The box had shrinkwrap instead of cellophane.The box art was similar with box art from 1961 control, but a suitable control 1962 product with packaging and box was not available for comparison.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot, and no non-conformances were identified.Event related to mw # 2210968-2023-06142, mw # 2210968-2023-06166, mw # 2210968-2023-06183, mw # 2210968-2023-06184, mw # 2210968-2023-06186, mw # 2210968-2023-06187, mw # 2210968-2023-06188.This report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by ethicon, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, ethicon, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|