|
With all the available information, boston scientific concludes that the cause of the patient experiencing an infection and undergoing a revision procedure could not be confirmed based on record review, the devices were not returned as they were disposed of by the facility, therefore device analysis could not be performed.A review of the manufacturing records associated with the device indicated that it was successfully processed according to requirements.The device history review, dhr, did not identify any manufacturing process-related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during production that could have caused or contributed to this event.The dhr review ensures each device meets required specifications and associated testing prior to release for distribution/sale.The devices were discarded by the facility and not returned for analysis; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.A labeling review was performed on the devices' instructions for use, ifu.There was no evidence that the device was used in a manner inconsistent with the labeled indications.Additionally it states that the following may be potential risks associated with its use, it may move from original implanted location or wear through the skin, which may lead to the need for additional surgery, infection, and implant site complications such as pain, poor healing, redness, warmth, swelling or wound reopening.Based on all available information, engineers are not able to confirm the root cause of the event.The devices were not returned, as such, physical analysis could not be conducted in our laboratory.Record review revealed no additional information related to the complaint.Therefore, this investigation is unable to determine a probable root cause for the complaint, and the conclusion is cause not established.
|
|
It was reported that the patient developed a suspected infection at the right head over the burr hole cover site of the deep brain stimulation (dbs) system.It was confirmed that the patient picked at the incision site causing the device to become exposed.The patient underwent a procedure in which the burr hole cover cap was replacement procedure, the wound was closed and the patient is doing well post operatively.The infection was not confirmed, and the cap will not be returned it was disposed of by the facility.It is unclear as to which of the two burr hole cover caps was replaced.
|