|
The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the reported failure mode.The device inspection revealed the following: the received drill bit shows signs of extensive and prolonged usage with its tip found to be broken.The remaining cutting edges show severe deformation.The breakage surface overall resembles a typical brittle fracture surface.However, significant permanent deformation was observed around the edges along the breakage surface.Most likely the drill was already blunt, which in turn required large amount of drilling force.Subsequently, due to a combination of high torsional and bending load, the drill broke off.The critical diameter of the drill was observed to be 4.168mm and average hardness of the drill was observed to be 56.3 hrc.As per the dimensional inspection and hardness testing, the returned drill was found to be within specifications.A review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.The ifu clearly instructs the user: ¿stryker t&e typically does not specify the maximum number of uses appropriate for a reusable medical device.The useful life of these devices depends on many factors including the method and duration of each use, and the handling between uses.For a device that may be impacted check that the device is not damaged to the extent that it malfunctions or that burrs have been produced that could damage tissues or surgical gloves.Careful inspection and functional test of the device before use is the best method of determining the end of serviceable life for the medical device.¿ based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a user related issue.The visual inspection suggested that the drill broke in a sudden manner.The breakage of the tip seems to be a forceful fracture while drilling it forcefully in a relatively harder bone.The device was manufactured in 2001, so it can be said that it has performed its function in the previous surgeries as intended without any reported failure.Since it has been long in use, thus a normal weakened structural integrity due to repeated reprocessing cycles is also possible.If any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|