|
Lot and serial number of the device not provided by the complainant; therefore, the udi, expiration and manufacturing dates are not known.Device history record (dhr) review was unable to be conducted for the disposable device as the identification numbers were not provided by the complainant.The device involved in this event was not returned for evaluation purposes therefore visual and functional analysis of the product could not be performed.We are unable to confirm a relationship between the device and the issue reported.The information obtained during complaint investigation will be included in our global complaint trending and product surveillance will continue to monitor complaints of this type for adverse trends.If the product is received or additional information is obtained, the investigation will be reopened accordingly per standard operating procedure.
|
|
An investigation was completed: it was reported that on december 5th, 2024, a physician reported that sometimes when performing a biopsy with an atec needle they noticed a piece of material plastic in between the specimens.The particles were only observed in the samples and not in the patients.No samples have been observed in the breast of the patient.Physician reported that no injury was reported to patients nor users.The device was not returned to the post market quality laboratory for investigation.Visual and functional inspection was not able to be conducted.Functional test was not conducted, the damage reported was a foreign material and the functional test is not necessary to confirm the issue reported.Root cause analysis did not identify a most probable root cause.However, similar events were reported, resulting in the creation of additional complaint cases regarding current complaint visual and functional testing could not be performed as the device was not returned for analysis.Additionally, no lot number, images, or other relevant information were available for the case.Quality inspection processes are implemented at the production line to prevent recurrence of similar events and ensure compliance with established standards.Due to the lack of sufficient information, no most probable root cause could be determined, and it cannot be confirmed whether this was an unusual occurrence.Conclusion: root cause analysis did not identify a most probable root cause.The risk index for this situation falls within the range already calculated in the risk trending.It is likely that this is an isolated issue rather than a recurring problem within the product family, system, or failure mode reported in the complaint.Therefore, no update to the risk management file is required.Additionally, there is insufficient information to determine whether a capa is warranted based on this complaint.Device history record (dhr) review: n/a.The dhr was not reviewed because there wasn¿t a lot number available.
|