Investigation summary: one sample unit was received for evaluation by our quality engineer team.Upon examination, the package was observed to be open at both ends of the blister pack.The packages were analyzed under uv light as the adhesive used is uv fluorescent.The analysis revealed an adequate amount of top web adhesive.Although the packages were observed to be partially opened, there was no physical evidence to confirm or to support manufacturing process related issues for the defect.Lot analysis device/batch history record review: yes findings: as this complaint was a mdr; -dhr review was performed on the lot number 5219908 the lot number was packaged on packaging line 8 from august 9, 2015 thru august 14, 2015.Per review of the dhr¿s it was concluded that all required challenges samples and testing was performed per specification in accordance with the set-up and in-process sampling plans.Set-up and in-process samples (included but not limited) blister thickness, bad seal/cut/holes, seal transfer width and package leak test were performed on various stages throughout the process, all the inspections passed per specifications.Visual analysis observations and testing: received one unused iag 22ga unit in partially opened package from the lot number; 5219908.Visual/microscopic examination: the package was opened at the both ends of the blister pack.The analysis of top web adhesive: the product characteristics require a minimum of 1/8¿ seal transfer.This characteristic was met.In addition the paper top web of the returned unit was analyzed under uv light.The glue used to seal the top and bottom webs is uv fluorescent.The analysis revealed an adequate of top web adhesive.The key variables that affect seal strength are: seal transfer/width and top web glue.Both of these variables were looked at during the investigation.Investigation samples(s) meet manufacturing specifications: yes; the returned unit provided for evaluation for this incident met the manufacturing specification requirements in regards to package seal integrity poor/questionable.Investigation conclusion: the defect package seal integrity poor/questionable as stated in the description of the complaint was confirmed with the returned unit.No anomalies were found and all the process characteristics that directly influence the seal strength were observed to be within specification.The units were acceptable per specification requirements.Did the evaluation confirm the customer's experience with the bd product? yes; the customer experience was confirmed based on the evaluation that was performed on the returned unit.Were we able to reproduce the customer's experience with the bd product? no; it was not necessary to achieve reproduction of the customer¿s experience, as the defect was confirmed.Relationship of device to the reported incident: indeterminate comment: although the packages were observed to be partially opened, there was no physical evidence to confirm or to support manufacturing process related issues for the defect.Capa (b)(4) has been opened to investigate the package open seal defects and implement corrective actions.
|