Manufacturing review: manufacturing records were reviewed (dhr, mrr¿s, scrap and mfg.Process changes) and there were not found evidence that the failure mode reported in this complaint is caused by the mfg.Process.Investigation summary: the device and outer packaging sleeve were returned for evaluation.A visual inspection found the outer sleeve showing signs of it being previously opened.It was noted that the inner storage tube was returned in the outer sleeve with the distal end of the tube at the top of the sleeve.This indicated that the tube had been removed from the sleeve prior to return.The storage tube was not returned in the sterile inner pouch, and the pouch was not returned for evaluation.Slight damage to the outer sleeve and inner storage tube was noted, however, no damage was noted to the device.Although the device packaging was returned without the inner pouch, the investigation is inconclusive for the alleged lack of the inner pouch as the device was returned opened with signs of the device being removed from the outer sleeve prior to return.No information was provided that could confirm the device was shipped without an inner sterile sleeve.Per the packaging procedure for this device, the assembly operator inspects each inner pouch prior to inserting into the outer sleeve.Therefore, it is unlikely that the reported issue is manufacturing related.The definitive root cause for the reported missing inner pouch could not be determined based on the available information.Labeling review: the review of the ifu (instructions for use), indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, and contraindications showed that the product labeling is adequate.H11: b5, h3, h6 (results1, conclusion1).H11:section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.
|