[129028404]
Spontaneous report, from the us. Local reference # (b)(4). Quality complaint was opened, septodont reference # (b)(4). Quality complaint dealer reference # (b)(4). Initial information received on 01-nov-2018 by dealer sales representative and follow-up #1 information on 12-nov-2018 from the dealer by phone. Both initial and follow-up #1 information are integrated in below case narrative. On 01-nov-2018, the dentist complained of that suspect device patterson 27 gauge long needle (batch # f06844aa, exp: 2022-10) was weak at the hub, and it broke off with slight bend. Date of incident was not reported and during this episode, the patient did not "experienced" adverse reaction and damage. At time of follow-up contact on 12-nov-2018, dealer learned from the reporting dental office that the suspect device in fact was "broke" in the patient's mouth. The suspect device was inserted, then broke "twice". Patient details are not specified (age, gender, intention for dental treatment, etc. ). The dentist indicated that the patient(s)'s outcome is stable and unaffected by this incident. Additional follow-up with reporting dentist is currently underway. Causality assessment performed on 20-nov-2018 on initial information received on 01-nov-2018 and additional information received on 12-nov-2018: seriousness: serious (required intervention to prevent permanent impairment/damage (devices). Listedness/expectedness: needle issue: unlisted eu, unexpected us/ca; no adverse event: listed eu, expected us/ca. Causality: latency - compatible; recognized association - no. Analysis - needle breakage occurred in the mouth of an unspecified patient while using the medical device. The possible causes of this event may be an excessive pressure or movement of the needle during injection, the use of a needle size inappropriate to the type of procedure, possible patient movements during injection due to his anxiety or needle defect. Based on the few information provided, no assessment can be performed and therefore the causal relationship between the device and the events was considered as not assessable. Dechallenge - na; rechallenge - na. Concluded causality who: not assessable.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5