|
H11: manufacturing review: the device history records have been reviewed, and this lot met all release criteria.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.No photos were provided for review.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported device markings / labelling problem as no objective evidence was provided for review.A definitive root cause for the reported device markings / labelling problem issue could not be determined based upon the provided information.Labeling review: labeling review is required for this record as the reported event is a labeling issue.By comparing the received label sticker from the manufacturer site against document, it was noted that everything mentioned in the product label sticker such as pk number, country origin, gauge size & needle length, lot number characters, use by date format, gtin number, sequential number format was verified, and it matched with the document.By comparing the received pouch from the manufacturer site against document.It was noted that the catalogue number, pk number, gauge size & needle length, lot number characters, use by date format, gtin number which was mentioned in the pouch was verified and it matched with the document.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.
|
|
On (b)(6) 2025, a patient underwent an ct guided biopsy procedure by using the truguide coaxial.It was reported that during the procedure, the device allegedly failed to obtain sample.It was further reported that labeling mismatch, the yellow barcode labels indicated c1816a, but the actual model was c1820b.There was no reported patient injury.
|