|
(b)(4).Date sent 3/28/2025.D4 batch # unk.An analysis of the product could not be performed since a physical sample was not received for evaluation.As part of our company quality system process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and distributed to approved specifications.However, if the product is received at a later date, the investigation will be updated as applicable.The manufacturing records were reviewed and the manufacturing/packaging criteria were met prior to the release of this lot.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent: what is the sequence of events for the 73-year-old patient? what device was used in each procedure? why does the surgeon believe that the device caused or contributed to the peri splenic infected hematoma? what were the indications for surgery? did the patient receive any preoperative chemotherapy or radiation? when was the staple retaining cap removed? what provisions did the surgeon take to ensure the tissue was lying evenly within the jaws? was the device difficult to close? was the device closed and repositioned multiple times prior to firing? was the device difficult to fire? was the distal transection completed in one or multiple firings? what is the scrub's experience with reloading the device? were there any difficulties loading the device? what did they do to ensure that the cartridge was snapped in please prior to closing the device? was the retaining pin placed manually or automatically? what is the current status of the patient? what was the total estimated blood loss (ml)? was a transfusion required? how was the bleeding addressed? what was the pre and postoperative anti-coagulant and pain management protocol? was the bleeding intraluminal or extraluminal? what is the current patient status? this report is being submitted pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been investigated or verified prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by ethicon, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the product, ethicon, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial report, a follow-up report will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
(b)(4).Date sent: 4/10/2025.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: sequence of events for the 73-year-old patient? what device was used in each procedure? why does the surgeon believe that the device caused or contributed to the peri splenic infected hematoma? what were the indications for surgery? did the patient receive any preoperative chemotherapy or radiation? when was the staple retaining cap removed? what provisions did the surgeon take to ensure the tissue was lying evenly within the jaws? was the device difficult to close? was the device closed and repositioned multiple times prior to firing? was the device difficult to fire? was the distal transection completed in one or multiple firings? what is the scrub's experience with reloading the device? were there any difficulties loading the device? what did they do to ensure that the cartridge was snapped in please prior to closing the device? was the retaining pin placed manually or automatically? what is the current status of the patient? what was the total estimated blood loss (ml)? was a transfusion required? how was the bleeding addressed? what was the pre and postoperative anti-coagulant and pain management protocol? was the bleeding intraluminal or extraluminal? what is the current patient status? response: unfortunately, no further information is available.
|