|
Correction: this mdr is being submitted to correct the submitted expiration date under d4.Additional information - this mdr is being submitted to include the below: h6: investigation results under type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions.H11: investigation summary.Per revision 21 of procedure 3709030, a child investigation is not required to document the device history record (dhr) review for a type 2 reportable complaint.However, the child was created to allow the parent record to advance to review and summary.Since it was created, the dhr review was documented within the child.Complaint investigation results: a complaint investigation has been initiated under complaint investigation child record (b)(4).The batch 5408470, in question was manufactured at the reynosa site.Dhr review: the lot 5408470 was manufactured according to the work instruction (wi) version 50 and manufactured in the line inset 6 on 03-jan-2023, with a total of (b)(4) units.Review of the dhr showed that an extended inspection was created due to dislodged tube, extended inspection was found within specification.Conclusion summary of complaint investigation: no non-conformance (nc) raised during production related to complaint code, no further actions are required.This complaint will not require further root cause investigation nor corrective and preventive action (capa) plan.Extended inspection is not related with the claimed malfunction therefore, this issue will be monitored through the post market surveillance activities.
|