|
E1 - phone number: (b)(6), g4 - pma/510(k) #: exempt, h3 - device evaluation anticipated, but not yet begun.This report includes information known at this time.A follow up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Correction: h6: annex g code g04037 was inadvertently left out in initial emdr report.Additional information: d9.H3: device has been returned, and preliminary evaluation has been performed, however, our investigation is ongoing and device evaluation summary will be included in our follow up report once our investigation has been completed.This report includes information known at this time.A follow up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unavailable, or unchanged.Investigation evaluation; description of event: it was reported, during ureteral calculi removal, the user detected the handle was stuck and the tip of the ngage nitinol stone extractor was damaged.Its use was discontinued.Another same type device was used to complete the procedure.No section of the device remained inside the patient's body.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), manufacturing instructions (mi), and quality control (qc) procedures, a visual inspection, and functional test of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.One ngage nitinol stone extractor was returned in an open package with label.The handle did not actuate the basket formation and the support sheath was loose from the basket sheath.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) was performed and one related nonconformance was identified; however, all non-conforming product was scrapped, and there are 100% inspections in place to capture the non-conformance.A review of complaints with the same lot number shows no other complaints.A review of the ifu provides the following information: suggested handling instructions for extractors and forceps: important: excessive force could damage device.Although one relevant non-conformance was noted on the complaint lot, all non-conforming product was scrapped, there are 100% inspections in place to capture this non-conformance, adequate inspection activities have been established, there is objective evidence that the dhr was fully executed, and no other lot-related complaints have been received from the field.Therefore, it was concluded that there is no evidence that additional non-conforming product exists in house or in the field.The information provided upon review of complaint file, device history record, complaint history, inspection of returned device, and quality control documents cook has concluded that the device was manufactured to specification and that there is no evidence suggesting nonconforming product exists either in house or in the field.Based on the information provided, inspection of the returned device, and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that the cause for the complaint could not be established.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.
|