Manufacturing review: a complete manufacturing review could not be conducted, as the lot number is unknown.Visual inspection: a visual inspection could not be performed as the device was not returned.Functional/performance evaluation: a functional/performance evaluation could not be performed as the device was not returned.Medical records review: medical records were not provided; therefore, a review could not be performed.Image/photo review: images/photos were not provided; therefore, a review could not be performed.Conclusion: the investigation is inconclusive, as the sample was not returned for evaluation.Per the reported event details, the patient disclosed that they had an allergy to nickel post-implantation.The current instructions for use (ifu) states: "as with any foreign object implanted into the body, potential adverse reactions are possible.It is the responsibility of the physician to evaluate the risk/benefit prior to the use of this device." therefore, it is likely that patient issues contributed to the reported event.However, based upon the available information, the definitive root cause could not be determined.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.
|
It was reported that post breast tissue marker placement, the patient allegedly developed a rash at the site of the marker placement, which she treated (corticosteroid cream).It was further reported that the physician currently sees no sign of a rash.Allegedly, the patient was prescribed an antibiotic.The marker remains implanted.
|