|
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 (b)(4), a child investigation is not required to document the 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 6003954, in question was manufactured at the reynosa site.Device history record (dhr)review: the lot 6003954 was manufactured according to the work instruction (wi) version 94 and packaging in the machine multivac 10 on 11-nov-2023, with a total of (b)(4) units.Gluing tube: the sub-assembly, gluing tube of the lot 3k04575 was manufactured according to the wi version 57 and manufactured in the machine ft02, on 27-oct-2023, with a total of (b)(4) units.The review of the dhr revealed that during on-line, one sample failed the visual test.Consequently, an extended for a bent needle was raised.However, according to the sampling results, the lot was accepted.Furthermore, the overall review of the dhr confirms that all required process-related tests were completed and met the applicable requirements.No deviations were identified, and conclusion summary of complaint investigation: as a result of the following: no non-conformance (nc) was raised during production in relation to the complaint malfunction code.However, this complaint requires a further device history record (dhr) determination assessment due to findings in the dhr review associated with the complaint code.
|