|
Upon receipt at our post market quality assurance laboratory, additional information from product investigation indicates that the device was not returned for analysis; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.Good faith effort attempts were made to try and retrieve the device; however, response was not received.It was confirmed that a review of the device history record (dhr) was performed.The review of the dhr identified that there were no process related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during the production that could explain the event.The reviews ensure each device meets specification prior to release for use.There was no indication the device manufacturing process contributed to the reported complaint.A risk review was completed and confirmed that the event of infection was defined in the risk documentation.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Review of labeling determined that the complaint situation was listed in the manual.There was no indication in the complaint that the product was not used in accordance with labeling.The manual was unlikely to be the cause of the reported complaint; translation, wording, or graphics does not require further review.Based on a thorough review of the reported complaint, boston scientific has assigned an investigation conclusion code of known inherent risk.This supplemental report is being filed to correct the d9: device avail for eval; d9: device return date; g2: report source; h2: follow-up type; h3: device eval by manufacturer; and h11: additional mfr narrative.
|