|
A review of complaint history, device history record, drawing, manufacturing instructions, quality control, and interview of personnel was completed during this investigation.The device was not returned.Based on the available information it is not clear if the leading cause to this event might be associated with a pre-existing patient condition, the medical procedure, or an eventual malfunction of the device.The device history record was reviewed and noted one non-conformance.A review of the non-conformance data revealed that the non-conformance listed on the device history record was for a documentation error.This non-conformance is not related to the reported failure.A complaint history search revealed this complaint and one other related complaint (b)(4) associated to the complaint lot number 6959304.There is no definitive evidence that the device was not manufactured to specification.It is feasible that patient condition along with user technique and placement of the device contributed to the loss of blood flow, pain and swelling experienced by the patient.It is also feasible that a device occlusion resulted in insufficient flow, pain and swelling.We will notify the appropriate personnel and continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.
|