|
As reported, when a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators package was opened, there was a hair on the device.The device did not make contact with the patient.The patient did not require any additional intervention and did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Additional information regarding event details have been requested but is not available at this time.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Corrections and additional information: b5: additional information received 26aug2024 d4: model # = gpn #.Investigation ¿ evaluation: as reported, when a flexor ureteral access sheath and dilators package was opened, there was a hair on the device.The device did not make contact with the patient.The patient did not require any additional intervention and did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.They completed the procedure using a new product.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturer¿s instructions (mi), and quality control (qc) procedures were conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no functional testing or visual inspections could be performed.Cook has concluded that the device was manufactured to specification.Additionally, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.A review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.A review of the device history record (dhr) found no related non-conformances reported for lot.A complaint history database search showed no other related complaints associated with the failure mode for the complaint device lot.Because there are no related non-conformances, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot related complaints that have been received from the field, it was concluded that there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in field.Cook also reviewed product labeling; the ifu supplied with the device states the following in consideration of the reported failure mode, information to the user: "how supplied: do not use the product if there is doubt as the whether the product is sterile." based upon the available information and results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the cause for the complaint could not be established.The appropriate personnel have been notified and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is required.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|