Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.(b)(6).(b)(4).Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.A device history record review was performed for the subject device lot.The review showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.No non-conformances were generated during the production of the subject device.The investigation could not be completed; no conclusion could be drawn, as no product was received.A manufacturing investigation was also performed for the subject device.The plate cutter was received with surface scratches.Visible wear and tear marks were seen on the cutter and the edges of the cutter are rounded.The plate holder is broken off and was not returned for investigation.The laser etching is readable.The device was produced and distributed on november 2008.The manufacturing review shows that the production procedure was according to the specifications.Based on the received information the exact root cause cannot be determined.It is likely that the plate was not correctly inserted into the plate cutter.Due this situation the execution of the cutting process could not be performed because a higher force application was needed.Therefore the force was not allocated as intended, which could lead to the complained issue.The fracture face is homogenous, which indicates material conformity as well.The relevant dimensions could not be checked due to the bad condition of the part.The damage to the device was caused post-manufacturing.The complaint condition is confirmed.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|