|
H3, h6: ¿the reported device was not returned to the designated complaint unit for independent evaluation, thus visual inspection and functional testing could not be performed.A review of device records showed there were no indications to suggest that the product did not meet manufacturing specification upon release for distribution.A complaint history review concluded this was a repeat issue.The instructions for use was reviewed and found to include conditions of off label use and technique specifics, as well as precautions and warnings related to the use of the device.A risk management review found that the reported failure was documented appropriately, and there were no indications to suggest the anticipated risk is not adequate.A clinical review states per the complaint details, it was reported the broken metal piece was successfully retrieved from the inside of patient with a gripper.Based on the limited information provided, the root cause of the reported breakage cannot be determined.The procedure was successfully completed using a backup device without a significant delay.Since there were no other complications reported, no further clinical/medical assessment is warranted at this time.Should additional medical information be provided, this complaint would be re-assessed.There was no way to determine if the device contributed to the reported event.The complaint was not confirmed.Factors that could have contributed to the reported event include: (1) hitting the device tip against a hard surface.(2) using the device as a lever to enlarge surgical site.(3) mechanical displacement of tissue through applied force.No containment or corrective actions are recommended at this time.If the product associated with this event is returned at a future date, this investigation will be reopened for evaluation.
|