|
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 physical sample was not returned for evaluation.Three electronic photos were provided and reviewed.Clip_1.Jpg photo shows the marker applicator.It is noted that the applicator is noted to be stretched with multiple kinks throughout.The distal tip of the applicator is noted to be detached and not within the photo.Clip_2.Jpg photo shows an unknown object that appears to have residue.The applicator is noted to the side of the object.Clip.Jpg photo shows a label of a senomark ultra; product information was verified with trackwise.Therefore, based on the photo review, the reported failures: difficult to insert and separation failure could not be confirmed based on the provided photos, so kept as inconclusive.The investigation is confirmed for the identified material detachment as the distal tip of the applicator is noted to be detached and also the investigation is confirmed for the identified material deformation as the applicator was noted be stretched with multiple kinks throughout.A definitive root cause for the reported difficult to insert issue, reported separation failure, identified material deformation and identified material detachment 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: 11/2025) 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.
|