(b)(4) the customer returned one 44402 rusch polaris fo su medium handle for investigation.Visual analysis revealed the handle was damaged as parts of the plastic which connects to the blade was missing.Functional inspection was performed in an attempt to replicate the reported failure.A lab inventory handle was attached to a lab inventory emerald 2 blade.Once attached, the handle and blade assembly appeared to be sturdy and very difficult to break.In an attempt to replicate the reported failure, r & d placed a test assembly comprised of a lab inventory handle and emerald 2 blade under the instron tensile strength machine.The test assembly yielded and broke at approximately 220n.The yield starts at the neck and breaks the plastic at the pin, which does not match the failure mode observed in the returned complaint sample.The blade was placed in an incorrect orientation along the handle and subject to an external force.It was observed that the handle had some indentation marks on the back, but not much force was applied on the pin area.This does not match the indentations observed on the returned complaint sample.Per r & d, "the patient was 330lb male.So the head weight is around 27lbs (8.2% of the body weight) which is 120n.The test shows that the laryngoscope combination should handle more than 120n easily and also the failure mode is different in the complaint sample." the ifu for rusch polaris laryngoscope blades states "1.Attach to fiber optic system handle - 2.Click into place - 3.Lift blade and verify illumination." the reported complaint of a broken handle was confirmed.The root cause of this complaint could not be determined.Teleflex will continue to monitor and trend on complaints of this nature.
|