| Model Number |
7209497 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
11/11/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Internal complaint reference (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that upper movable branch of the arthro-pierce was broken.Incident occurred before the procedure.There was no delay and a back-up device was available.All available information has been disclosed.If additional information should become available, a supplemental report will be submitted accordingly.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3,h6: the reported device, intended for use in treatment, was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.There was a relationship found between the subject device and the reported incident.The customer provided images confirmed the upper branch of the arthropierce was broken.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 an isolated event.The complaint was confirmed.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include an impact event inconsistent with normal use.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported device, intended for use in treatment, was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.There was a relationship found between the subject device and the reported incident.The customer provided images confirmed the upper branch of the arthropierce was broken.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 an isolated event.The complaint was confirmed.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include an impact event inconsistent with normal use.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10, h3, h6: the reported device, intended for use in treatment, was received for evaluation.There was a relationship found between the returned device and the reported incident.The costumer provided images confirmed the upper branch of the arthropierce was broken.A visual inspection revealed that the upper jaw of the device had broken off.There was significant wear on the handles and indications of age, but no debris.A review of the device 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 an isolated event.The complaint was confirmed and the root cause was associated with component failure.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include more frequent use than anticipated for the device, rough sterilization processes, or inability to withstand excessive forces during use.No containment or corrective actions are recommended at this time.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|