|
During visual inspection, score marks consistent with expected markings due to incremental distraction were observed on the distraction rod.There was no visible cellulose buildup was found.The rod was functionally tested and unable to be distracted with manual distractor and electronic remote controller (erc).The rod was unable to be retracted with fast distractor to perform the stroke test.X-ray images of the internal components for the rod revealed broken internal parts such as; radial ball bearing, locking pin, retaining ring, anti-jam ring, and cylinder magnet.Sectioning of the housing tube revealed similar findings of the x-ray images.The radial ball bearing, locking pin, retaining ring, anti-jam ring and cylinder magnet were all broken.The reported failure mode was confirmed as the rod was not able to be distracted/retracted.There was no objective evidence to support the complaint description of tissue discoloration and cellulose buildup.After following up with the complaint reporter, no pictures or lab results were provided to support the complaint description of tissue discoloration and cellulose buildup.The iqc inspection data for the internal components; radial ball bearing, locking pin, retaining ring, anti-jam ring, and cylinder magnet were reviewed and the parts met design specifications per the engineering drawings.Review of the device history records revealed no discrepancies related to this complaint.The rod was manufactured in accordance with the specified requirements and met all of the required quality inspections.Based off the evidence seen from sectioning of the housing tube and the x-ray images of the rod, it can be deduced that the rod experienced repeated, excessive axial loading that caused serial failures of the various components that limit axial motion of the internal mechanism.
|