|
It was reported that during an atec procedure on (b)(6) 2025, the user tested the needle, completed the biopsy and observed the tissue samples in the filter while performing the lavage; however, the user reports that upon attempting to obtain the tissue from the filter, it was not present.The user reports that a second procedure was required to obtain additional tissue samples as the initial tissue samples were never found.No further information is currently available.
|
|
An investigation was conducted: it was reported that during an atec procedure on (b)(6) 2025, the user tested the needle, completed the biopsy and observed the tissue samples in the filter while performing the lavage; however, the user reports that upon attempting to obtain the tissue from the filter, it was not present.The user reports that a second procedure was required to obtain additional tissue samples as the initial tissue samples were never found.Functional testing could not be performed due to the condition of the returned unit, which exhibited significant damage: the tubing was cut, and the outer cannula had been removed.Root cause analysis did not identify a definitive root cause.The investigation included a comprehensive review of device history records, complaint data, risk assessment, and testing results.No single failure mode or specific fault could be conclusively linked to the event.However, based on the findings of the clinical investigation, the complaint is confirmed.Conclusion: the root cause analysis did not identify a definitive cause.A thorough review of device history records, complaint data, risk assessments, and testing did not reveal a specific failure mode.The risk trending calculations results do not increase the risk index zone.No further actions are required at this moment.Future events will be monitored and trended.Complaint confirmed: yes.Device history record (dhr) review: the dhr was reviewed for the corresponding lot, and no relevant risk factors were found in the manufacturing process.
|