|
It was reported by the user site that during a affirm prone biopsy system, 3d patient exam on (b)(6) 2025, the procedure was aborted post-incision due to the z-axis not lining up properly after qas.The user site reported that they were unable to target properly and that the biopsy was rescheduled.A hologic field service engineer (fse) was dispatched to investigate the device.The fse checked all the targets of the device and was unable to reproduce the problem.The fse did a device calibration and verified the qas.The fse verified that the system is now operating according to manufacturer specifications.No further information is currently available.
|
|
An investigation was conducted: it was reported by the user site that during an affirm prone biopsy system, 3d patient exam on (b)(6) 2025, the procedure was aborted post-incision due to the z-axis not lining up properly after qas.The user site reported that they were unable to target properly and that the biopsy was rescheduled.No parts/logs were returned/provided so investigation will be limited to risk assessment and complaint review a hologic field service engineer (fse) went on site and could not reproduce the problem given the targets the customer experienced issues with.As a precaution he performed the stx calibration and verified qas passed.No additional complaints for targeting have been reported by this customer since completion of service activities based on the limited information available, root cause is unknown, the probable cause is user error as several other use factors can contribute to targeting issues, including but not limited to, patient pull back and movement of the area of interest with lidocaine application.Conclusion: in conclusion this complaint cannot be confirmed.Based on the limited information available, root cause is unknown, the probable cause is user error as several other external factors can contribute to targeting issues, including but not limited to, patient pull back and movement of the area of interest.No further issues have been reported by the customer since the fse visit.A capa is not needed at this time as there is no evidence of non-conforming product or missing mitigation related to this complaint.Additionally, the risk is considered low based on the occurrence.Future events will be monitored and trended.Device history record (dhr) review: udi: (b)(4).As the most probable cause was user error, review of the dhr is not warranted.Review of the complaint history who no previous complaints related to this issue and no further complaints since field service was on site.
|