|
One opened probe was received, without a tip protector, in a pouch.The sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with dense orange/brown foreign material on the port face.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation, aspiration and cut.The sample was found to be conforming for aspiration, no bubbles observed.The sample was found to be nonconforming for actuation and cut.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Excessive wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos.Wear marks observed along the inner cutter.Gouge marks observed at cutting edge and other locations along the inner cutter.The sample was retested for actuation with the probe driver and was able to actuate.The initial actuation test failed due to an interference within the probe and once the interference (needle assembly) was removed the probe was able to actuate.A review of the device history record traceable to the lot number obtained from the device¿s radio frequency identification (rfid) tag, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.Two videos provided were reviewed by the investigation site.Video 1 appears from an eye surgery, the devices cannot be identified, at the second 10 bubbles are observed, the exact source of the bubbles cannot be identified.Video 2 appears from an eye surgery, the devices cannot be identified, at the second 2 what appears a large bubble is observed, the exact source of the bubble cannot be identified.The complaint evaluation does not confirm the probe had bubbles.The complaint evaluation confirms the probe had a cut failure, the evaluation also indicates the probe had an actuation failure.The root cause for the cut and actuation failures as well as the foreign material and cutting edge gouges observed is due to the excessive surgical use of the probe.The vitrectomy portion of the procedure is typically less than 20 minutes and it appears that the probe has experienced a use much greater than this typical timeframe.The excess usage of the probe will wear and damage the inner cutter such that the cutter function becomes poor, bent, or does not function at all.The complaint evaluation was unable to confirm the report of wire drawing as a wire is not identified as a component of the probe assembly, an attempt to obtain clarification was performed, no clarification was provided.The reported probe bubbling was not confirmed, and it appears that the observed cut and actuation failures were due to excessive use of the probe by the user and the report of wire drawing was unable to be confirmed; therefore, no specific action with regard to this complaint was taken by the manufacturing site.All probes are 100% visually inspected and tested for actuation, aspiration, and cut during manufacturing.Any non-conformances found are removed from the lot and scrapped.Complaints are reviewed and monitored at regular intervals for any significant adverse trends.No adverse trends have been observed associated with the reported product and event.No further actions are required.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|