|
If the information is unknown, not available or does not apply, the section/field of the form is left blank.A device history record (dhr) review was conducted: visual inspection: the complaint device (aim-device f/guidewire f/pfna+tfn f/ap o) was returned for investigation.Additionally, a photo in the notes & attachments section was reviewed.It was identified cracked and broken sections of the epoxy covering across the middle section of the wire surface; the photo findings are consistent with physical investigation.No other issues were identified.Dimensional inspection: a dimensional inspection could not be performed as the device has post manufacturing damage and complex geometry; relevant dimensions cannot be measured.Document/specification review: the current drawings were reviewed.Investigation conclusion: the reported condition of the complaint device (aim-device f/guidewire f/pfna+tfn f/ap o) is confirmed.After investigation, the cracking condition is visible, but there are chipped details at the middle section of the device.There was no indication that a design or manufacturing issue contributed to the complaint.No design issues were observed during the document/ specification review.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post market safety surveillance activities.Device history lot - a manufacturing record evaluation was performed for the finished device lot number, and no non-conformances were identified.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|