(b)(4).Batch # unk.The lot/batch was not provided; therefore, the manufacturing record evaluation could not be performed.Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: can you please clarify how the severed vessel was addressed? oversewn with suture.How was the procedure completed? as normal.Were there any patient consequences? graft/flap did not take so having to reattempt another graft today.Were there any changes in the post-operative care of the patient? patient was taken to theatre on 2 different occasions to perform a reanastomosis.Additional follow-up was conducted, and the following information was received: did the jaws of the jaws of the device cut the vessel or did the clip cut the vessel? unsure all happened during firing sequence.Did the surgeon believe that the re-attempt for the graft is associated with the alleged deficiency of the clip applier? if yes, please explain why.Couldn¿t enough length of vessel so when graft was transferred it didn¿t have sufficient supply.Also feels graft may have died due to time sorting bleed.What was the approximate size of the vessels that the mcm20 was fired on? 5-7mm.Is it the surgeons normal routing to check the jaws of the device to ensure that there is a clip in the jaw prior to firing? yes, however can¿t guarantee clip was there.Please provide the status of the device as it has not been received for analysis.If the device has been shipped, please provide the shipment tracking details.Device was not kept to be sent back.
|