A return material authorization form was provided to the customer for the return of the product for evaluation.The customer provided photographs of both the sensor and the patient¿s toe however; the customer has not returned any product for evaluation.The customer feedback indicated that the surgery the patient underwent was going on for 6 to 7 hours.The customer also indicated that the sensor was not relocated during the surgery.This is contrary to the sensor¿s ifu (453564154671-l-ifu/a), which states that the sensor application site should be inspected every 2 to 3 hours and the that the sensor site should be moved every 4 hours or if circulation or skin integrity is compromised.Additionally, the m1192a sensor was attached to the patient¿s big toe during the surgery.Per the sensor¿s labeling (453564154671-l-ifu/a and 453564304981/b), the intended application site of the sensor is the patient¿s finger.It is not known how or if application of the sensor to the patient¿s big toe affects the performance of the sensor, but this is also a possible contributing factor to the incident.The product reportedly did not perform as expected by the customer.The investigation found that the sensor was used contrary to the sensor¿s labeling.The blister required incision and drainage, along with antibiotics.It was also noted that the toenail came off.There is no information to support that there was a product malfunction or defect that would have caused or contributed to the reported patient response.No additional investigation or action is warranted.We are considering that the product remains at the customer site.Submission of a report does not constitute an admission that medical personnel, user facility, importer, distributor, manufacturer, or product caused or contributed to the event.
|