Device history review: review of the device history records indicate devices were manufactured and accepted into final stock with no reported discrepancies.Complaint history review: there have been no other events reported for the reported manufacturing lot.Visual inspection: visual inspection was performed as part of the material analysis report (mar).Images of the device are included in the mar.The reported event was confirmed.The larger proximal flange was separated from the body and had been pressed onto the distal tip of the device.A material analysis has been performed.The report concluded: ¿the proximal flange of the restrictor plug fractured due to the application of an overload force in the proximal direction.The distal flange was also damaged due to a similar loading condition.While the cause of the overload can not (sic) be determined based only on this analysis, excessive bending force on the flanges from insertion into an undersized cavity could result in a similar failure.No material or manufacturing defects were observed.¿ conclusions: the proximal flange of the restrictor plug fractured due to the application of an overload force in the proximal direction.The investigation determined the plug was inserted into an undersized hole.There is no indication at this time that the design, materials, or manufacturing of the subject device contributed to the event.If additional information becomes available, this investigation will be reopened.
|