Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.(b)(6).The device was received, the investigation could not be completed, and no conclusion could be drawn, as product is entering the complaint system.A review of the device history records has been requested.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.
|
A review of the device history records (dhr) was attempted, but as the manufacturing details are not available the dhr could not be performed.A product investigation was completed: the review of the service order form from the affiliate in (b)(4) indicates the device was sent in for service for the following: further to this the service technician identified the following: general, worn out, tip breakage.Investigation confirmed following: general, worn out and tip breakage.The manufacturing details of the product could not be retrieved.The service history was not available and dhr could not be performed.The service technician noted the action taken as exchange, replacement.Functional testing of the device has been performed in accordance with the service manual.The service technician identified the probable root cause as improper handling.The device was serviced and returned to the customer.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.
|