|
As reported, prior to patient contact, the customer opened the package of a selective salpingography catheter and found that the head end of catheter was broken, so its use was discontinued.The user replaced with a new product to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.
|
|
Investigation evaluation: description of event: as reported, prior to patient contact, the customer opened the package of a selective salpingography catheter and found that the head end of catheter was broken, so its use was discontinued.The user replaced with a new product to complete the procedure.The patient did not require any additional procedures due to this occurrence.The complainant has not reported any adverse effects on the patient due to this occurrence.Reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), quality control (qc) procedures, and a visual inspection of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One selective salpingography catheter was returned for investigation, in opened packaging.The tip of the catheter appeared to have been cut 1cm from the proximal tip, with the point of damage nearly separating the two sections.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 non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other related complaints associated with 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 that the device was manufactured to specification and there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in the field.Cook also reviewed product labeling.The product ifu, provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: how supplied: "upon removal from the package, inspect the product to ensure no damage has occurred." the most probable cause of the reported event was damage to the device during transport or storage.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.
|