The complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown.(b)(4).The device has not been received for analysis.Upon receipt and completion of the failure analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
Block d4 and h4: the complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown.Block h6: device code a0501 captures the reportable event of the electrode tip detachment.Block h10: investigation results the returned orise proknife was analyzed, a visual evaluation noted that no damages or additional defects were found.A functional evaluation noted that the electrode did not extend from the tip.The distal tip was inspected; the tip of the electrode was observed to be detached.The ceramic tip was removed from the device to observe the location of electrode detachment.No other issues were noted.The reported complaint was confirmed.Based on all available information and the condition of the returned device, it is likely that procedural factors, such as the length of time used, power settings required, handling technique, and/or tissue composition resulted in the electrode damage, and subsequent use of the electrode resulted in the detachment.It indicates that the event occurred due to the nature of the procedure, and the device had no influence on the event.The investigation concluded the most probable root cause is adverse event related to procedure.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed and confirmed that this device met all material, assembly and performance specifications at the time of release for distribution.A labelling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the directions for use (dfu) / product label.There were no issues found with the translation, wording, or graphics in the dfu.
|