Unique device identifier (udi): (b)(4).Perforator was not returned for evaluation; therefore, an evaluation of the device could not be performed.Lot number information has been provided; therefore, manufacturing records were reviewed and found no anomalies.The cause(s) of the difficulty reported by the customer could not be determined.If additional relevant information becomes available in the future, this complaint will be reopened, and the respective evaluation performed.Trends will be monitored for this and similar issues.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.
|
The perforator was received for evaluation: device history record (dhr) - there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.All test results passed procedural specifications failure analysis - the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.A worn "eto" label, and damage to molded sleeve and outer drill (non-manufacturing related) were observed.Ifu testing procedure was performed with no observed anomalies.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release.The unit was found to perform as intended and fulfilled the acceptance criteria.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit was found to work as intended, and met all acceptance criteria.The complaint could not be verified through failure analysis.The root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.A dhr review and trending were performed as part of the evaluation.Proper finished goods testing was performed prior to release as indicated in the dhr.Product was received for analysis and the investigation could not confirm the complaint.The risk remains acceptable per the risk analysis.
|