|
Additional information: the device is expected to be returned for evaluation but has not been received at glaukos evaluation center.Therefore, product testing on the actual device could not be performed.The device history record review of the manufacturing lot was performed and there were no non-conformities found to be related to the reported event.A complaint history review was completed.The electronic complaint system was searched for the specified lot#.There were no similar issues reported for this lot #.A review of the device labeling including the risk analysis was completed.The reported issue (trocar fragmentation) is identified to be an anticipated hazard.The residual risk for each potential harm was found to be within the insignificant risk region.The ifu adequately provides instructions for stent implantation, precautions, and warnings for the proper use and handling of the device.Mfr# reference: (b)(4).
|
|
The evaluation of the returned device was completed, and the x-ray revealed that the device was in the third singulated position, and no stents were returned.The singulation slide motion, implantation button motion, and introducer sleeve subassembly motion were not functioning properly due to bent frontal components.The injector¿s frontal components were found bent, and the trocar was not secured in the carrier.These findings likely occurred due to how the device was returned.All devices undergo visual inspection via x-ray per manufacturing internal procedures.A review of x-ray images for the linked manufacturing index on the device housing revealed that the accepted injector contained three (3) splays and three (3) stents on the trocar that met the required specifications.If any of the frontal components were bent during x-ray, the unit should get rejected.The device was disassembled and visually inspected.No non-conformances related to the reported event were found.The associated device history record (dhr) for the injector assembly for this lot was reviewed, and no issues were found.All devices undergo visual inspection per manufacturing internal procedure.If the trocar was not seated properly during visual inspection, the unit should get rejected.Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the trocar was shipped dislodged from the carrier.Conclusions based on the evaluation findings were confounded by the condition of the returned product.As a result, a root cause of the reported issue was not definitively identified.Mfr# reference: (b)(4).
|