|
A review of the device history record traceable to the reported lot number indicates that the product was processed and released according to the product¿s acceptance criteria.A review of the database for the non-conformance events and the complaints showed that the given lot number was not concerned by any deviation and that there are no additional complaints associated with it.The investigation is concluded based on the sample evaluation.The sample was received in its inner and outer blister and with the cover foil showing the batch information.The sample shows evident macroscopic signs of damage, namely that one of the scissor blades is broken off.It shows some signs of surgery residues.The sample was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope under various magnifications.The fractured surface is within the shaft and can therefore not be inspected.There are no abnormalities that would indicate a root cause for the breakage.As the blister was opened by the customer, the product was handled and used on a patient.The situation in which the malfunction occurred can no longer be determined, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.Even though the damage that is evident on the returned sample does not align well with the complainant¿s report, this investigation confirms that the product is defective.However, the root cause could not be identified.It cannot be determined how or where the damage to the sample occurred.Therefore, a root cause for the customer's reported event could not be determined.The exact root cause for the customers reported event is unknown, therefore, specific action cannot be taken.Complaints are reviewed and monitored at regular intervals for adverse trends.No adverse trends have been observed associated with the reported product and event.No action has been identified for this reported event.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|