|
The reported event could be confirmed, since the device was returned for evaluation and matches the alleged failure mode.The device inspection revealed the following: the identification of the returned instrument was confirmed based on the catalog # and the lot # marked.The visual inspection has shown that the received extractor shows signs of normal usage.Its tip is found to be broken.The breakage surface shows mixture of rough and smooth surface.Absence of plastic deformation indicates a sudden brittle fracture due to high torsional and/or bending overload.The fracture face is diagonal, indicating high lateral forces during fracture.However, it cannot be excluded that residual stress from previous usage also contributed to the breakage.As per the dimensional inspection and hardness testing, the returned device was found to be within specification.Based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to an user related issue.The breakage shows typical signs of torsional and bending overload applied on the extractor during the surgery.As a reminder, the instructions for use clearly state that: "always treat the instrument carefully to avoid surface damage or alterations to the instrument geometry.While rare, intra-operative fracture or breakage of instruments can occur.Instruments which have experienced excessive use or excessive force are susceptible to fracture." a review of the device history for the reported lot did not indicate any abnormalities.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling did not indicate any abnormalities.No indications of material, manufacturing or design related problems were found during the investigation.If more information is provided, the case will be reassessed.
|