|
The reported device, intended for use in treatment, was returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation.There was a relationship found between the returned device and the reported incident.A review of the device history records 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.A visual inspection revealed bent, tip/fiber damage, broken lenses and scratches.The complaint was confirmed.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event an impact event inconsistent with normal use.
|