|
A healthcare professional reported that the product was contaminated, and it caused endophthalmitis in three patients.The event timing and procedure details were unknown.The patients were under treatment, and the current condition of patients was unknown.Additional information has been requested, none received till date.
|
|
Corrected information provided in a.1, a.3.A, and h.6.(fda health impact codes) additional information provided in b.2, b.5, and h.11.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
|
Additional information updated in h.6., and h.11.A single micro parts kit was returned inspected no damage to the seals was observed.Reported product evaluation showed that one micro parts kit was returned for inspection.No seal damage was observed.Although this unit was not the device used in the reported event, it was from the same lot and served as a representative sample.A blue dye penetration test was performed by introducing dye through a slit in the pouch and rotating the package to expose all seal edges.No dye migration across the adhesive seal was observed on any side, and no breaches of the sterile barrier between the poly and tyvek layers were identified.The sterile barrier met all specification requirements.The sterile consumables quality product certificate for the associated finished-goods batch was reviewed and confirmed that the product underwent sterilization per validated parameters, with all cycle criteria verified as acceptable prior to release.Photo review was inconclusive.The images provided included a small-parts pouch and a third-party laboratory report; however, neither offered sufficient detail to determine a root cause.Resolution, glare, and reflection on the poly film near the seal area limited the ability to visually confirm a seal defect or identify a failure mode.The report also indicated that the pouches were partially opened before being sent to the third-party lab.Even with attempts to minimize exposure, this confirms that sterility was compromised prior to laboratory handling.Additionally, transit conditions¿including duration, environmental exposure, and sterile controls used during analysis¿were not documented, further limiting the ability to draw conclusions from the lab results.The investigation conducted a non-conformance review of the reported lot number.No deviations that could have contributed to this event were identified and all corresponding production release specifications defined in the device master record were met.A definitive root cause could not be established because the product used in the reported event was not returned for evaluation.The representative unit that was received from the same lot was tested, and all seal integrity checks met specification.Without the actual device involved in the event, the reported condition could not be verified, and no device-related failure mode could be identified.The product used in the reported event was not returned, preventing verification of the condition and precluding a root-cause assessment.The representative unit received from the same lot met all seal-integrity specifications, and no manufacturing or sterilization issues were identified during the review of the lot record and batch documentation.Receipt of additional relevant information or supporting materials will prompt a re-evaluation of the complaint investigation.Complaint data for all company products is reviewed monthly to monitor for adverse trends.During the last review, no adverse trends were observed for the reported product and event combination.Quality assurance has reviewed this complaint and will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.No further action warranted at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|