H3, h6: the device, used in treatment, was not returned for evaluation.There was a relationship found between the device and the reported incident, as an image of the device was submitted by the customer.A review of the device history records for the device showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification or would not be able to perform as intended.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.The image provided by the customer showed the device's top jaw was broken off.Inspection of the customer provided image revealed that the device's electrodes were detached; however, it could not be deduced if it was worn or missing completely.Visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed since the device was not returned for evaluation; however, the complaint was confirmed as the submitted image provided sufficient evidence to confirm.The complaint was confirmed.Potential factors unrelated to the manufacture or design of the device that could have contributed to the reported event includes: (1) excessive force (2) device used as a lever for manipulating hard tissue or bone there are no indications to suggest the device did not meet product specifications upon release into distribution.If the product associated with this event is returned at a future date, this evaluation will be reopened for investigation.
|