|
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.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer, at this time, for evaluation.A lot history review (lhr) of juatf782 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.Device not yet returned for evaluation.
|
|
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.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, trend analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint that the statlock device is popping open could be related to an inadvertent application of adhesive in the locking area of this unit during the manufacturing process.Two statlock devices were returned for investigation.A visual observation of the returned statlock devices revealed that the adhesive backing had been removed from sample #1, which indicates that the product had been used.Sample #2 appeared to be unused.A functional test revealed that each retainer had some retention force, but could be opened without pushing in on the button to unlock the locking arms.A microscopic examination of the samples revealed adhesive under the edge of the locking arm retainer, which would prevent the barbs on the locking arm from sliding underneath the edge.The tips of the locking barbs exhibited deformation, and it appears to be related to the adhesive that prevented proper locking of the retainer.Patient movement or the position/type of device in the retainer may also affect the retention properties.
|