Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.Additional narrative: (b)(4).(b)(6).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 subject device has been received and is currently in the evaluation process.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
Additional narrative: a manufacturing evaluation was completed: the product was not returned in the original packaging.The laser etching was readable.The product is broken in places with scratches and small fragments missing.A device history record (dhr) review was performed for the affected lot, no abnormalities or deviations were detected, which could lead to the complaint failure.The part dimensions could not be verified due to the damage of the part.The raw material used for the article is peek.No manufacturing error could be detected and the part successfully passed a quality inspection.Based on this the complaint is rated as confirmed and not valid from the point of view of the manufacturing site.No manufacturing related issue was identified and/or confirmed.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.
|