Investigation results: when we examined the instrument, we could see heavy signs of use in the form of scuffs, impact marks and scratches, the entire surface is darkly discolored, and silicate residues can be found which probably originate from reconditioning.Both jaws are broken off.The fracture surface shows a force fracture due to an overload situation which is also confirmed by the bending and deformation of the remaining segment.On one leg an unknown stamp is applied.In the space between the upper and lower part and at the joint of the working end, severe corrosion can be seen which could be caused by improper maintenance (too little or no lubrication by oil after the washing process).The hardness test resulted in a value of 46.1 hrc, which corresponds to the specifications.Batch history review: due to the fact that no lot number was provided, a review of the device history records for the complained device is not possible.The review of risk assessment revealed that the overall risk level (severity 4(5) and probability 1(5)) according to din en (b)(4) is still acceptable; the current failure rate is within the risk analysis and therefore acceptable.Explanation and rationale: according to the quality standard and the age of the product, a material defect and a production defect can be ruled out with a high degree of probability.There are no indications of previous damage or similar.We can rule out a manufacturing-related cause based on the current analysis results.These devices are sensitive to lateral loads such as torsional and lever forces or impacts.Conclusion and measures / preventive measures: based upon the investigation results, in all probability, the damage was caused by an overload situation.This is also supported by the damage in the form of bending of the residual material which is why the cause in all probability lies in the handling, although this cannot be clearly proven.The reason for the deviation cannot be determined.Based upon the investigations results a capa is not necessary.
|