(b)(4).Batch # unk.The lot history records were reviewed and the manufacturing criteria were met prior to the release of the lot.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information: when the ¿jaw stuck¿, did the jaws close? when the ¿jaw stuck¿, did the jaws open? did the surgeon attempt to manually open the jaws with his fingers? if no: was the device on a vessel/artery when it would not open? if yes, how was the device removed? (i.E.Cut off, forced opened) if cut off, did this cause a change in the plan of care for the patient? did the removal cause any damage to the vessel/artery? if yes, what is the damage and how was the damage repaired? did the surgeon continue the case with this same device? to date, no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.
|
(b)(4).Date sent: 6/22/2018.Batch # r92138.The device was returned with the bottom portion of the i blade out of the lower jaw channel; the lower jaw channel was damaged.The device was connected to the generator and it was recognized.Because of the condition of the device not all functional testing could be performed with the generator.The jaw was unable to cycle open and close.A probable cause of the damage to the jaw could be not allowing thick and fibrous tissues to denature prior to i-blade advancement.The batch history record was reviewed and no defects, nc¿s or protocols related to the complaint, were found during the manufacturing process.
|