There was no known reported patient involvement associated with the complained event.Date of event is unknown.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.A device history record (dhr) review was performed for part no.: 03.501.080, lot no.: 7797648: manufacturing location: (b)(4), release to warehouse date: 12.Mar.2012: no non-conformance reports (ncrs) were generated during production.Review of the device history record(s) showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.A product investigation was performed.The application instrument for sternal zipfix (part: 03.501.080, lot: 7797648, mfg: 12-mar-2012 was received with the reported condition of ¿will not cut/dull nrm.¿ the device was initially received at service and repair.The customer reported the instrument was not cutting the zip fix.The repair technician reported that part of the cutting tip was broken off and missing.Tip broken is the reason for repair.The item is not repairable per the inspection sheet.The cause of the issue is unknown.The evaluation was confirmed.At customer quality, the returned application instrument for sternal zipfix was inspected and the complaint was confirmed.Visual inspection performed at customer quality observed that the proximal portion of cutter was broken and the fragments were not returned.No new malfunctions have been identified.Whether this complaint could be replicated is not applicable because the device was returned damaged.Relevant drawings for the returned device were reviewed (both current and from the time of manufacture): top-level drawing for application instrument for sternal zipfix 03.501.080, and sternum tie and determined to be suitable for the intended design and application when used as recommended.Dimensional analysis was not able to be performed due to missing broken fragments and post manufacture breakage.A device history review was performed for the returned instrument¿s lot number and no ncrs, mrrs or complaint-related issues were identified with the lot number which may have contributed to the complaint condition.Also, based on the device history record review, there is no indication that any issues with material or material properties contributed to the complaint condition.While no definitive root cause could be determined it is possible that any excessive unintended forces encountered by the device during usage or handling could have contributed to the broken complaint condition of this 6+ year old reusable instrument.During the investigation, no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.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.
|