This report is being submitted in pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by mitek or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mitek, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.The lot number and expiration date were inadvertently missed on the previous report.Therefore, both fields have been updated accordingly to reflect the correct information.Udi: (b)(4).Investigation summary according to the information provided, it was reported by the sales rep via phone that during a shoulder arthroscopy the vapr coolpulse90 electrode immediately at start suction did not work, it is not usable.The complaint device was received.Supplier evaluation result for vapr coolpulse90 electrode: the device was not returned in the original packaging, the active tip looks in a used condition, with evidence of activation and debris on and around the active tip.The suction tube of the device shows evidence of debris/dried saline within, no visible damage to the device shaft, handle, cable or plug.The electrical test was performed with the different parameters (active continuity, return continuity, primary capacitance, and hipot active-return) as a result all pass.During functional test, the activation test ablation and coagulation mode were fail.The device was functional testing using vaprvue generator (gml 4808/3), the test included different values as results the flow rate fail and the activation in ablate and coagulation were pass.Supplier summary: device 2 - the device was electrically and functionally tested.The initial flow rate was found to be 8.14ml/min, well without of specification, substantiating the initial customer complaint.After further evaluation the blockage was confirmed, to be tissue at the distal end of the device.After the blockage was successfully cleared the flow rate was re-measured and found to be well within device specification.For device 2, we were able to confirm the reported suction issue with the returned electrode however no manufacturing defect was found and we have determined the cause of the reported suction blockage to be normal procedural debris within the active tip which was successfully cleared.A manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device u1812038 number, and no non-conformances were identified at this point, no further action is warranted.However, depuy synthes mitek will continue to track any related complaints within this device family as a means of monitoring the extent with which this complaint is observed in the field.
|