Updated fields: d4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6, h10 udi - (b)(4).Product was returned, and the following was performed on the returned unit: the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.Unit was observed to have been autoclaved/exposed to heat (deformed blue sleeve) visible tooling marks on the outer drill.Ifu testing was performed after re-sleeving the unit because the ifu test could not be performed in the ¿as received¿ condition.Testing included: applying adequate pressure on the perforator point, ensuring engagement occurs as the hudson end is rotated.When engagement occurs, placing thumb pressure on the perforator point to ensure a smooth, positive spring action.Ensuring the hudson end rotates smoothly within the perforator body when the unit is in the disengaged position.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 after it was re-sleeved.It was attempted to drill with the sleeve deformed, but it would not.Therefore, the sleeve was changed to a new sleeve and performed as intended.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.Product was received for analysis and the investigation could not confirm the complaint.
|