|
It was reported that during and atec procedure on (b)(6) 2025, the user observed excessive "grease" around the opening of the tissue collection chamber.It is reported that the user utilized the device and successfully completed the patient procedure; however, observed a foreign particle in the tissue sample.No patient or user injury was reported, and no further information is currently available.
|
|
An investigation was conducted: it was reported that during and atec procedure on (b)(6) 2025, the user observed excessive "grease" around the opening of the tissue collection chamber.It is reported that the user utilized the device and successfully completed the patient procedure; however, observed a foreign particle in the tissue sample.No patient or user injury was reported.The device was returned to the post market quality laboratory for investigation.Visual inspection was conducted, and the inspection revealed the cut block damaged.Functional testing was not conducted.The visual inspection identified the cut block damaged, consistent with the initial evaluation, confirming the failure.The complaint was confirmed, and root cause analysis determined that the failure was attributable to the cut block, which was damaged, as identified during the visual inspection.According to the investigation, the foreign body visible in the tissue sample is probably a piece of cut block, which is biocompatible and most probably does not present any kind of risk or harm to the patient because of its composition.Conclusion: the reported issues have been confirmed, and the most probable root cause has been identified.A comprehensive review was conducted, including device history records, complaint data, and risk assessments.Capa/hra/ncr/scar are not deemed required at this moment by this event.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.
|