|
H10: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.However, photos were provided for review.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.H10: d4 (expiry date: 09/2026) h11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
|
H10: manufacturing review: the device history records have been reviewed and this lot met all release criteria.There was nothing found to indicate there was a manufacturing related cause for this event.Investigation summary: the sample was not returned for evaluation.Four photos were provided and reviewed.The first photo shows the distal end of the device within the packaging.The needle protector was noted on the device.The one radiopaque marker with interwoven pva polymer was noted to be deployed outside the applicator.The second photo shows a label of an ultraclip ii tissue marker; product information was verified with trackwise.The third photo shows the sealed packaging of the ultraclip ii tissue marker.The applicator is noted to be in a locked initial position, the one radiopaque marker with interwoven pva polymer was noted to be deployed outside the applicator.The fourth is a duplicate image of the third photo with a circle around the one radiopaque marker with interwoven pva polymer was noted to be deployed outside the applicator.Therefore, based on the photo review, the reported failure device contamination could not be confirmed as the provided photos shows that the material is noted to be a wire-form.Therefore, the investigation is unconfirmed for the reported device contamination as the small dust which was referred to be a foreign material in the reported event is noted to be a wireform and the investigation is confirmed for the identified device slipped as the pva marker was noted to be deployed outside the applicator.A definitive root cause for the alleged device contamination and identified device slipped could not be determined based upon the provided information.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.H10: d4 (expiry date: 09/2026), g2, g3, h6 (device, method) h11: b5, e1, e3, h6 (result, conclusion) h11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.H3 other text : device not returned.
|