|
It was reported by the international customer that the operator made 2 or 3 attempts to place the feeding tubes using the product; however, air was leaking from the stomach.The procedure was not successful as a result.A computed tomography (ct) scan was performed on the same day as a precaution.The patient elected not to have surgical intervention due to the risks involved, and experienced severe abdominal pain due to the failure of the device.
|
|
Additional information: 510(k): preamendment.Investigation ¿ evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, documentation, drawing, instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, quality control, and specifications of the device was conducted during the investigation, and no issues were found related to the reported issue.The complaint device was requested, along with photos, operating reports, x-rays, and scans.The reporter indicated that none of the aforementioned would be returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, a document-based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there was one other reported complaint for this lot number.Ifu t cautions that imaging guidance is recommended during product use and to ensure, prior to use, that the gastrostomy device to be used will fit through the lumen of the peel-away sheath.Based on the information provided, no product returned, and the results of our investigation; a definitive root cause could not be determined.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Monitoring will continue to be performed for similar complaints.
|