Internal complaint reference: (b)(4).H10: h3, h6: the reported device was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.There was a relationship found between the device and the reported event.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification upon release for distribution.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.A risk management review found that the reported failure was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate a clinical review states per the complaint details, it is unknown when the electrode crack occurred in relation to the surgery.Base on the limited information provided, a thorough medical investigation cannot be rendered, nor can a root cause of the reported crack be determined.Therefore, if any fragments of the cracked electrode are retained inside of the patient, we cannot rule out the possibility of micro-motion and/or migration of the any possible retained fragments cannot be determined.According to the report, the procedure was completed without significant delay using a back-up device.Since no patient injury or other complications were reported, no further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.Should any other medical information be provided, this complaint would be re-assessed.A review of the customer provided image shows a used wand with two wires partially detached on electrode.The complaint was confirmed.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include: hitting the device tip against a hard surface.Using the device as a lever to enlarge surgical site.Mechanical displacement of tissue through applied force.No containment or corrective actions are recommended at this time.
|