|
Received 6 of the (b)(6) devices in unopened original packaging.Performed a visual inspection of the devices and found obvious signs of a breach in two devices but not the other four.Visual inspection of the two devices with an obvious breach found that one had a complete opening in the side of the packaging and the second had a heat-seal that was partially lifted, leaving an open channel in the seal.A functional inspection was performed on the four devices that did not have an obvious breach.These four devices were dye-leak tested, which indicated that the heat seals were insufficient as there was leakage out of the seal for all four devices.Root cause cannot be determined, however, based upon evaluation of the device; a possible cause of this event could be the device was encroaching the seal.The manufacturing documents from the device history record have been reviewed with special attention to the manufacturing and inspection of the product.The product released for distribution was found to have met all specifications prior to shipment.A two-year lot history review was conducted and found a total of 6 devices for this lot number and failure mode.A two-year review of complaint history revealed there has been a total of (b)(4) reports, regarding (b)(4) devices, for this device family and failure mode.During this same time frame (b)(4) devices have been manufactured and shipped worldwide.Should all the complaint devices have been found confirmed for this reported failure, the rate of failure would be (b)(4).Per the instructions for use, the user is advised the following: inspect and test each device before each use.We will continue to monitor per regulatory requirements to help ensure patient safety.
|
|
During incoming inspection, the distributor rejected this device, (b)(6) for an insufficient heatseal.There was no contact with the patient as this was found during incoming inspection.This report is being raised due to the reported malfunction with potential for injury upon reoccurrence.
|