Investigation x-initiated manufacturer's investigation, x-no sample returned, x-review dhr.Analysis and findings distr.History the complaint product (sn (b)(6)) was manufactured at csi on 08/18/20 under work order (b)(4).Manuf.Record review dhr - (b)(4) was reviewed and no non-conformity, related to the complaint condition, were noted.Incoming inspect.Review incoming inspection record review not applicable to this product.Serv.Hist.Record no service history record found for this unit.Historical complaint review a review of the 2-year complaint history showed similar reported complaint conditions, where the handle broke.Product receipt the complaint product has not been returned to coopersurgical.Visual eval.Visual examination of the complaint unit was not possible as product has not been returned.Functional eval.Functional evaluation was not possible as product has not yet been returned.Root cause although the product was not returned, based on the historical complaints and prior root cause investigation, it was confirmed from tests that the failures were occurring at a level of force not likely to occur with just the articulation of the handle.Instead, it was apparent that the loads required to break the handle exist when the koh efficient (ke) is not in the proper position on the arm.When the ke is not properly positioned, it can impede in the rotation of the tip drum, introducing an undesired force on the device which can result in a broken plastic handle.The plastic handle did not undergo a recent design or material change.Should complaint unit be returned in the future, additional information will be added to complaint file.Correction and/or corrective action no further corrective action is required at this time, as the complaint condition was not confirmed.Preventative action activity coopersurgical will continue to trend this complaint condition.
|