|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown or unavailable.G4 ¿ pma/510(k) #: exempt 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.
|
|
Corrected information: d4.Investigation evaluation: description of event: it was reported a perc ncircle nitinol tipless stone extractor¿s basket handle was getting stuck while attempting to grasp a stone during an unspecified procedure.The procedure was completed by using another same-type device.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional intervention due to this occurrence.The patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.Reviews of documentation including the complaint history, device history record (dhr), quality control procedures, manufacturing instructions (mi), and instructions for use (ifu), as well as a visual inspection and functional test of the returned device, were conducted during the investigation.Two perc ncircle nitinol tipless stone extractors were returned with open pouch and label.Functional test were performed.Both devices were able to grab an ink pen and lift it up.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-conformance's 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-conformance's, 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 the device was manufactured to specification and there is no evidence that nonconforming product exists in house or in the field.The product ifu, did not provide any information related to the reported issue.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 cause for the failure of the devices to function for the user could not be replicated in the lab.Complaint confirmed based on customer testimony.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.
|