|
A review of the device history records was performed for the reported packaging lot for any deviations related to the reported defect of the complaint.The review confirms that the lot met all material, assembly and performance specifications.The (b)(4) october 2016 complaint report was reviewed for the stopcocks product family and the failure mode,"hole in pouch." no adverse trends were identified.The returned sample was visually inspected and the hole in the pouch was confirmed.The root cause of the hole is the handle from the stopcock presses outward against the (b)(6).As part of the receiving process at (b)(4) (the distributor in (b)(4)), all pouched products are removed from their inner boxes and a (b)(4) label (in (b)(6)) is applied to each pouch.Additional handling may occur if product is 100% visually inspected.The pouched product is then re-boxed into the inner box by the (b)(4) warehouse employees.The hole in the (b)(6) was likely caused by the handle of a stopcock in the pouch, however, what caused the handle to be pushed against the (b)(6) in a manner that resulted in a hole cannot be determined.Potential contributing factors include: handling of the pouches as they are placed in the inner boxes; handling during transit to (b)(4) warehouse; handling during (b)(4) labeling/inspection and re-boxing process.All pouches are 100% inspected per (b)(4) procedures during the sealing and final box processes.The directions for use (dfu) packaged with the kits contain the following warning: "contents supplied sterile using an ethylene oxide (eo) process.Do not use if sterile barrier is damaged." (b)(4).
|
|
As reported by (b)(4), in the distributor's warehouse a small hole was found in the (b)(6) portion of a stopcock pouch, breaching the sterility.The device had not been provided to a hospital, and was returned to (b)(4) for evaluation.
|