|
The device was not returned for analysis.Production record and corrective and preventative actions (capa) reviews were performed and revealed no indication of a product quality issue.Additionally, a query of the complaint handling database for the reported lot revealed there is no indication of a lot specific issue.A conclusive cause for the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal) could not be determined; however, the subsequent unexpected medical intervention (additional therapy/non-surgical treatment) appears to be related to the operational context of the procedure.Patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal the perforation) may be attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, patient anatomical morphology, product size selection, deployment technique, interference from previously deployed devices, or growth of perforation during deployment.In this case, it is possible that the perforation was larger than expected, which may have caused the reported patient-device incompatibility (failure to seal); however, this cannot be confirmed.A second graftmaster was implanted to completely seal the perforation.There is no indication of a product quality issue with respect to manufacture, design, or labeling.
|