|
Gn hearing a/s has become aware that this mdr report failed submission to fda without our notice.The fda help desk has advised to re-submit the reports.This is a re-submission of existing mdr initial submitted on 30mar2021.Manufacturers ref# (b)(4).Investigations performed: the investigation was performed by a third-party battery expert that included a full analysis of the case with the following evaluations and testing: photo documentation, optical microscopy, x-ray imaging, scanning electron microscopy (sem)/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (eds), x-ray computed tomography (ct) imaging, fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ftir), electrical testing, cell teardowns of incident cell 2341 and 2 field return cells, forced thermal runaway testing of 2 field return devices, x-ray inspection of 40 field returned units of similar age to the 2 incident units to evaluate for misalignment and lithium plating.Discussions and site visit with battery supplier and battery cell manufacturer.Summary of analysis: two incidents have been reported.Both incident chargers ((b)(4)) were provided to the third-party battery expert.The expert determined that the two incidents were caused by internal cell failures that resulted in thermal runaway.The root cause for the cell failures was not determined.Both incident units had cells from the same date code (4019).The battery is a standard lithium-ion battery, and the battery design and cell designs were determined to not be the cause of the incident.The following issues were among those that were eliminated as potential root causes of the cell failures: mechanical and electrical stress were eliminated as root causes.Thermal stress from the charger was eliminated as a root cause.Misalignment causing lithium plating within the battery cell was eliminated as a root cause.No evidence of lithium plating was observed in field experienced cells that were of similar age to the incident units.Charging voltages were eliminated as a root cause.The charging voltages remained below the battery's specified maximum charge voltage.Analysis conclusions: a review of 40 batteries from around the incident manufacturing time frame did not identify a systemic problem with a confirmed risk of elevated failure rate.Both incident cells were from the same lot - i.E.Had the same date code.The statistical likelihood that two failures would randomly occur in the same lot is extremely low.Given the absence of any finding of a systematic problem, and the fact that both incident units had cells from the same lot, the root cause is most likely a manufacturing issue with the cells from the batteries in the incident units.The absence of any additional incidents or benign failures from that date code indicate that any potential manufacturing defect was not systemic within that date code.The cell design, the population in the market, the presence of only two incidents, and the analyzed field returns all fail to support a finding that the failure is not lifetime dependent.Thus, there is no indication that the likelihood for this incident will increase.Conclusion: the investigation concluded that this was a randomly occurring issue.It also found that the hypothesis that there is a systemic battery problem in either the entire production or cells from the 4019 date code was not supported by the testing and analysis.Based on these findings, it is concluded that the benefit of the end user of being able to use their hearing aid and charge it outweighs the risk.As part of the capa action, gn hearing a/s will continue to monitor for similar incidents.
|