|
H10: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The return of the sample is pending.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.H11: section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all 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.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2024, a patient underwent a mri guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy through mass density, during the procedure it was reported that the needle of the device allegedly broke off.It was further reported that the half of the needle lodged in the visiloc and the other half remained in the patient.Reportedly the broke fragments were removed using clips and confirmed no metal was left behind.There was no reported patient injury.
|
|
H11: manufacturing review: the device history records were reviewed and this lot met all release criteria.Investigation summary: one 10g encor mri blunt tip biopsy probe and removable probe cover were received for investigation.The sample trap assembly was not returned.Product packaging and labeling were returned for the probe and verified with tw.The probe was received without protective tubing and appeared clean upon receipt.The probe body was rotates to identify any cracks.No cracks were observed on the probe body.The probe gears appeared to be clean.Visual inspection identified that the sample trap assembly was not returned.No damage was observed on the rear housing.The probe body was rotated to inspect for cracks, and none were observed and the probe gears appeared clean.Dried blood and tissue were present within the cutter.The probe was noted to be missing its aperture, and markings were observed throughout the cutter.No additional anomalies were identified during the initial inspection.A further device review was conducted and determined that the cannula tip was detached from the cannula body.The detached cannula tip was not returned with the complaint sample.Apparent weld marks were noted on the returned cannula body.The weld marks appear continuous and acceptable.However, the cannula tip was not returned and therefore the entire welding area could not be thoroughly inspected.Due to the reported breakage and identified detached components, functional testing was not performed.Based on the returned sample evaluation, the investigation is unconfirmed for the reported break and identified for detachment of device or device component as the encor probe was received with the cannula tip detached from the cannula body.It was determined the root cause of the detachment was most likely caused by a welding defect from the cannula supplier.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.B5, d4 (unique identifier (udi) #), g2, g3, h6 (device, component, method, result, conclusion).Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all 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.
|