The perforator was returned for evaluation: dhr: there is no indication that the production process may have contributed to this complaint.Failure analysis: the perforator unit was inspected using the unaided eye.The unit was observed to have a destroyed label.The unit was also noticed to have been autoclaved, therefore the blue sleeve was deformed.Ifu testing was performed after freeing the hudson end, likely fused due to being autoclaved.Testing included: applying adequate pressure on the perforator point, ensuring engagement occurs as the hudson end is rotated.When engagement occurs, placing thumb pressure on the perforator point to ensure a smooth, positive spring action.Ensuring the hudson end rotates smoothly within the perforator body when the unit is in the disengaged position.Functional testing was performed using the same protocol it underwent at finished goods testing prior to release.The unit was found to perform as intended and fulfilled the acceptance criteria.In the failure analysis that was performed, the returned unit was found to work as intended, and met all acceptance criteria.The complaint could not be verified through failure analysis.The root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.Even though the complaint could not be verified through failure analysis, potential root cause was investigated, potential root cause includes perforator components cannot withstand multiple sterilizations/uses, impact introduction of drill to skull able to cause scoring on the pin/triangle/slot interface, inadequate spring (k-factor and/or length), drill used for multiple holes; chatter/deformation of pin/slot interface, drill allows to be set incorrectly, incorrect specification of surface finish for inner drill outer drill and pin, or user misuse.
|