(b)(4).Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Complainant part is expected to be returned for manufacturer review/investigation, but has yet to be received.(b)(6).Device is not distributed in the united states, but is similar to device marketed in the usa.Without a valid lot number the device history records review could not be completed.The investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
A manufacturing evaluation was completed: the received saw was broken around the connecting thread.Signs of improper use can be observed.There are slight damages to the saw teeth and the bow but most important are the circular fractures around the coupling thread.No temper colors can be seen.That indicates that the breakage might be due to excessive mechanical stress but not necessarily due to overheating.Most likely the saw blades broke due to excessive mechanical stress applied.There is no clear evidence whether this mechanical stress was applied during surgery or whether the saw blades were damaged already before during coupling to the hand piece.A special torque limiter key has to be used for coupling the saw blades to the hand piece in order to avoid too high torque being applied.The device manufacturing documentation was reviewed and no deviations were found.(b)(4).Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|