|
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.Revision 21 of procedure (b)(4), 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 6000120, in question was manufactured at the reynosa site.Dhr review: the lot 6000120 was manufactured according to the work instruction (wi) version 14 and manufactured in the machine multivac 10 on 10/mar/2023, with a total of (b)(4) units.Glue-tubing lot: the lot 4c00324 was manufactured according to the wi version 61 and manufactured in the machine sc05 and sc06 on 08/mar/2024, with a total of (b)(4) units.Glue-tubing lot: the lot 3c01167 was manufactured according to the wi version 50 and manufactured in the machine lc02 on 10/mar/2023, with a total of (b)(4) units.Review of the dhr showed that all relevant tests required during the related processes had been fulfilled and met the requirements.No deviation were identified related to the malfunction reported, no maintenance events were recorded.Conclusion summary of complaint investigation: as a result of the following: 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.Therefore, this issue will be monitored through the post market surveillance activities.
|