Investigation: visual investigation: here we found a broken part off the carbide insert.Additionally, we detected brown discoloration and unknown deposits.Furthermore, we made a visual inspection of the fracture surface.No anomalies were discovered.Additionally, we could detect that the product was repaired by a third party.Batch history review: due to the fact that no lot number was provided, a review of the device history records for the complained device is not possible.The review of risk assessment revealed that the overall risk level (severity 4(5) x probability of occurrence 2(5) according to din en iso 14971 is still acceptable.Explanation and rationale: investigations lead to the assumption that more than one indication could be the broken part of the carbide insert.It could be possible that reason for the broken part was caused by a third party repair.In addition, we could detected brown discoloration, which could be a sign of corrosion.Due to an existing pre-damage or weak point, the reprocessing could be breakage-triggering.There is the possibility for a pre-damage due to a mechanical overload situation or an excessive force.This could also be the cause for the broken off carbide insert.The exact cause could not be determined.Possibly an excessive force has been applied on the instrument or the possibility of high leverage with the instrument.Conclusion and measures / preventive measures: based upon the investigation results a clear root cause conclusion cannot be drawn.There is no indication for a material, manufacturing- or design-related failure.Based upon the investigation results a capa is not necessary.
|