|
Additional information is provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.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 is no additional complaint associated with it.The returned instrument was received in its outer blister, covered with an adhesive tape.The inner blister which offers the protection to the instrument during the shipment was not used.The product shows macroscopic sign of damage, namely the forceps arms are significant bent.There are no signs of surgery residues.The instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope with various magnification.The visual inspection confirmed the deformation of the forceps arms in details.Since the sample was insufficiently protected during the shipment from the complainant to the investigation site and the forceps deformation is not described in the initial report description, it is assumed that this deformation occurred during the shipment.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 failure cannot be determined.No root cause for the customer's reported event could be determined, since the situation that lead to the instrument failure cannot be reconstructed.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).
|