|
Additional information is provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.A review of the device history record (dhr) 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 is one additional complaint associated with it initiated by the same reporting entity.The investigation is concluded based on the sample evaluation outlined below.The returned instrument was received in its inner and outer blister, covered with the tyvek lid foil showing the lot information.The product shows macroscopics signs of damage, namely the forceps arms are bent.The instrument shows no evident sign of surgery residues.The product was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope with various magnifications.The visual inspection shows the bent forceps arms in detail.The instrument was then functionally tested, and it was noticed that the actuation gets very severe, which is the result of the bent arms.As the blister was opened by the customer, the product was handled.Therefore, the point in time when the malfunction occurred can no longer be determined, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.The customer¿s complaint is confirmed, but a root cause for the defect cannot be determined.Since the situation that lead to the damage can not be reconstructed, a root cause for the customer's reported event cannot be determined.The exact root cause for the customer's 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).
|