|
It was reported a patient underwent an unknown laparoscopic surgery on (b)(6) 2025 and a drain was used.The adapter was broken when installing it., the event had never occurred before, but it seems likely that the adapter broke due to the result of force being applied in a strange direction, or that the connection method was not done properly.The product was used on the drain of the pelvic floor.Another product was used to complete the case.There were no adverse consequences to the patient.Further details are not provided.Additional information has been requested.Upon receipt and analysis it was noted that the adapter was cut/damage.
|
|
Product complaint # (b)(4).Additional information has been requested and received.Attempts to obtain the device have been made.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.Was the issue noticed before activating the reservoir? yes if no, was leakage reported? was the reservoir used with the adapter included with the corresponding blake drain? unk please perform and document the follow up attempt for product return.We regularly contact with sale rep about the device returning.Please provide the source or name and title of external person providing answers to follow-up (external person submitting answers to sales rep or loc/bq) (b)(6).H3 evaluation: complaint sample review: one complaint sample of adapter was received for evaluation; product was inspected visually below were detailed observations:1.Adapter had a partial connection port of the reservoir bulb stuck inside it.2.There were significant cut / pinned marks visible on the separation surface of the connection port of reservoir bulb.Above observations were clearly indicating that the product was used differently at user end, and lead to the defect generation.As per standard practice, 100% functional test and 100% visual inspection was carried out, before and after packing of finished goods, prior to the product release.There was no scope to miss such defect, at manufacturing / release stage.Documents review: during investigation of complaint, batch review of in-process and final packaging inspections, as well as the manufacturing process is performed, these products are reported to be manufactured, inspected, and packaged in conformance with customer's specifications and have been found to be acceptable within all parameters.No discrepancy as per the reported defect is observed.Retention sample review: no negative observation was found.Review of defective sample's image / video: not applicable, as there was no complaint sample image / video received for evaluation.The device history records were reviewed and the manufacturing criteria was met prior to the release of this lot.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.
|