Updated fields: d4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6, h10 the perforator was returned for evaluation: 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.Unit was soiled with organic matter, had a completely worn eo label and came disassembled.Ifu testing was performed once the unit was re-sleeved since it was received entirely disassembled.Once it was re-sleeved, the unit performed as intended.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release and the unit was found to perform as intended and fulfilled the 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.There is currently an open corrective action to investigate the disposable perforator product family, specifically related to potential problems with perforator welds.Additional information received: the manufacturer of the drill used with the perforator is an electric anspach.The perforator clicked in place in the drill and spring tests were performed at the beginning of the case.The procedure was completed with a replacement product.
|