|
Additional information provided in sections d.9.H.3.H.6 and h.10.The product under investigation is not a serviceable device.Therefore, a service record review was not performed.However, there was a laser probe returned for testing on this investigation.A non-conformance based review of the lot number was performed and did not reveal any potential contributing factors to the reported complaint.A manufacturing device history record (dhr) review was performed prior to product release to ensure that the product was manufactured in compliance with the device master record.Based on the assessment, the product met release criteria.A review for complaints reported against this lot number was performed.A quality summary (qs) was opened to address a product insertion issue into the port.Root cause was attributed to foreign material found in the probe cannula during a sample evaluation.However, it remains inconclusive how or when the unknown foreign material was deposited on the cannula.The laser probe was received for testing.Initially the sample was incorrectly identified to not be associated with the customer reported event after the rfid tag lot was read.However, after further identification, the radio frequency identification (rfid) tag lot was determined to be matching to the customer report.The returned sample was connected to a calibrated system and was successfully recognized.A visual assessment under a microscope was performed and revealed clear foreign material adhered to the probe cannula.A fit check was performed with a trocar and had difficulty passing through.Foreign material was deposited on the cannula.However, it remains inconclusive how or when the foreign material was deposited on the probe cannula.Therefore, the root cause of the reported event is inconclusive.Manufacturer will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|