Corrected data: device was unable to be returned.The device was not returned for evaluation nor any infection documents (e.G.Laboratory test results) have been received.Thus, the reported event could not be confirmed.Further information (e.G.Catalog and lot number of the device, date the infection was discovered and impact to patient) has been requested several times regarding the event.The ¿infection complaints ¿ checklist customer¿ (b)(4) was not completed by the customer.Initially, the response from the sales rep was, ¿(¿) dr.(b)(6) is not concerned with the infection complaint raised as this happens in 10% of cases and she does not believe that the plate is to blame for this.We started to complete the form but did not make much progress with it as it would require her going back through notes and investigating.(¿)¿.Other questions regarding the event were left unanswered.In another follow-up, the sales rep has clarified that ¿(¿) dr.(b)(6) really isn¿t concerned with the infection as this occurs in 10% of patients and wasn¿t down to the plate.(¿)¿.As the customer has stated that the event (infection) was not related to the reported device, expanded investigations related to manufacturing (e.G.Environmental monitoring, sterilization validations tests) process steps were not performed.Infection is a known adverse event related to this procedure.It has been documented in the instructions for use associated with this device that this type of adverse event may rather be clinically related than implant related.Based on statistical evaluation there is no indication for an incorrectly working product or any systematic design, material or manufacturing related issue.Therefore, no further corrective and / or preventive actions are deemed necessary at this time.The complaint is added to the complaint trend.Should further information be available, the investigation will be re-evaluated.
|