|
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 are no additional complaints associated with it.The investigation is concluded based on the sample evaluation outlined below.The returned instrument was received in its outer blister covered by the tyvek foil lid showing the lot information.The product shows macroscopic sign of damage, namely the forceps arms are significant bent.The instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope using various magnifications.The product shows signs of surgery residues.The visual inspection confirmed the macroscopically noticeable damage and displayed the deformation of the forceps arms in detail.The damage of the device, as well as the missing inner blister suggest that damage of the forceps arms on the product was caused during the shipping process from the complainant to the investigation site.The instrument was tested to determine whether the adhesive connection between the tube and sleeve was broken, which was confirmed.However, the point in time when the noticed malfunction occurred can no longer be determined conclusively, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.The customer¿s complaint is confirmed as the returned device shows significant deformation, but a root cause for the reported issue cannot be determined.It cannot be determined how or where the damage to the sample occurred; therefore a root cause for the customers reported event could not be determined.The exact root cause for the customer's reported event is unknown, therefore, specific action cannot be taken.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|