There is no patient involvement.Date of event: it is unknown when device broke.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Part 311.43; synthes lot: 4642055; supplier lot: n/a; release to warehouse date: (b)(6) 2003; expiration date: n/a; manufactured by synthes (b)(4); the raw material was confirmed to be correct per the specification with no (relevant) non-conformance noted.No nonconformance reports (ncrs) were generated during production.Review of the device history record showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of this product, and any subcomponents, which would contribute to this complaint condition.The instrument was received with the reported condition of ¿broken (2+ pieces) pre or post operatively/step unknown : nrm¿ the following investigation flow was performed: broken.It was visually observed that phenolic end cap (not returned) from the instrument has been broken off from the device as it can be seen that the peg like portion (not returned) of the phenolic handle (proximal end) that holds the end cap has sheared off from the rest of the instrument.The complaint condition is confirmed and the received condition agrees with the complaint description.The cause of the issue could not be definitively traced to use error, misuse/abuse, non-compliance, postoperative trauma.A dimensional inspection could not be performed as the end cap was not returned.A device history review, was performed for the returned instrument¿s lot number and no material review reports (mrrs), ncrs or complaint-related issues were identified with the lot number which may have contributed to the complaint condition.A review of the current design drawing and the drawing revision at the time of manufacture was performed: top level and subcomponents and no issues were identified.While no root cause could be determined it is likely that use of device for over 15+ years and with consistent sterile processing/rough handling could have contributed to the complaint condition.A material inspection was performed during the time of the device history record review and the raw material was confirmed to be correct per the specification with no (relevant) non-conformance noted.During the investigation, no product design or manufacturing issues were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.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.
|
It was reported that during routine inspection of field equipment on an unknown date, it was discovered that the part that spins has broken off on a handle with quick coupling.The device was found with the broken handle when putting the instruments together.The age of the device is unknown, but it is believed to be quite old.There is no patient or procedure involvement.This report is for a handle with quick coupling, small.This is report 1 of 1 for (b)(4).
|