Manufacturing review: a complete manufacturing review could not be performed, as the lot number is unknown.Visual inspection: the device was not returned; therefore, a visual inspection could not be performed.Functional/performance evaluation: the device was not returned; therefore, a functional/performance evaluation could not be performed.Medical records review: medical records were not provided; therefore, a review could not be performed.Image/photo review: based on the images provided, no tissue markers could be identified in the images received, can be confirmed.Based on the images provided, a blooming artifact was demonstrated on every image received, can be confirmed.Conclusion: although the sample was not returned for evaluation, images were provided for review.Based on the images reviewed, the investigation is confirmed for the reported issue, as artifacts were identified in the mri images provided.Per the reported event details, the biopsy clip was visualized under mri imaging.The current ifu states, "mr image quality may be compromised if the area of interest is in the exact same area or relatively close to the position of the breast tissue marker.Therefore, it may be necessary to optimize mr imaging parameters for the presence of this metallic implant." it is possible that procedural issues and/or imaging techniques contributed to the reported event.However, based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: the current instructions for use (ifu) provides general instructions for use of the device, as well as warnings, precautions, and potential complications associated with the device.The information provided by bard represents all of 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 bard.
|