|
Duragen suturable dural regeneration template 2 (durs2291) was not returned for evaluation.However, evaluation of retained samples was performed as follows: device history record (dhr) review: lot number information has been provided; therefore, the dhr was reviewed nd no anomalies were found during the manufacturing and packaging processes.Retain sample evaluation: eight (8) boxes were visually inspected: dispenser boxes and contents were in good condition, tray sealing area was complete, no defects were observed on the sponge product, and suture retention strength test performed to retain sample was satisfactory.Medical assessment: a medical assessment was performed to evaluate the possible relation between the reported event and product use.The assessment concluded the following: "the information contained within the complaint does not confirm an occurrence of device malfunction.Pores are microscopic but if there were holes in the matrix (not suture holes) the device should have been returned for investigation.Should cerebrospinal fluid (csf) exude from the matrix during valsalva, typically duraseal is used.This did not occur in the instance; however, when the non-suturable matrix was used, tisseel biological glue was also used as reinforcement." root cause: based on the available information and the medical assessment provided, there is no information that confirms an occurrence of device malfunction.If additional relevant information becomes available in the future, this complaint will be reopened, and the respective evaluation performed.Trends will be monitored for this and similar issues.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.
|