|
H11: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The return of the sample is pending.However, a photo was provided for review.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.Section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2025, a patient was scheduled to undergo a vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedure using an encor probe instrument.Prior to the procedure, during a stock inspection, it was noted that the device labeling information was missing.The device was not used, and there was no patient contact.
|
|
H11: manufacturing review: the reported lot number was unknown, therefore a device history record (dhr) review was not initially requested.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.One electronic photo was provided by the customer and reviewed.The image showed two sealed encor probe packages positioned side-by-side, with one package displaying the product label and the second package appearing to have no label affixed to the tyvek lid and no apparent residual adhesive or indications of prior label placement was present on the tyvek.According to the limited information provided by the customer, they alleged no label on the probe was suspected from batch vtjtj001, but could not be sure since it was already removed from the box.Based on the photo review and customer allegation, the investigation is confirmed as no product label was affixed to the tyvek lid and no evidence or adhesive or prior label placement was observed.A sales history review determined products shipped to mount elizabeth novena hospital (mnh) were specific to adroit lots.As distribution records indicate shipment of adroit manufactured probe lots and the customer suspected lot vtjtj001, a manufacturing process review, including dhr review for suspected lot vtjtj001 was performed.The review identified no manufacturing discrepancies, no documented instances of product packages progressing through the manufacturing process without labels applied, and no instances in which missing labels were identified prior to final release.The lot met all release criteria.Based on the available evidence, the investigation determined the missing label condition was attributed to the manufacturing process, as no adhesive residue or other evidence was observed to indicate that a label had previously been applied and later removed.Labeling review: a review of label, tyvek lid, encor probe, global (baw1498200, rev.1) determined the product labeling documentation is adequate.This document verifies the date of manufacture is not part of the global labeling of the items.A review of label, carton, encor probe, global (baw1498100, rev.1) determined the product labeling documentation is adequate.This document verifies the date of manufacture is not part of the global labeling of the items.B5, d4 (unique identifier (udi) #), g1, g3, h6 (method, result, conclusion).Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant/reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|