|
Additional information was provided in sections d.9, h.3 h.6 and h.11.The returned instrument was received in its outer blister covered with the tyvek foil shows the lot information.The returned product shows macroscopic signs of damage, namely that the soft tip is damaged.The instrument shows no surgery residues.The returned instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope using various magnifications.The visual inspection showed that the polyurethane soft tip was damaged significantly.The instrument was then functionally tested regarding their aspiration/irrigation properties.No leakage and no blockage could be found throughout the instrument.However, the tear in the soft tip impacts the direction of the water jet during irrigation mode, as could be expected.As the blister was opened by the customer, the product was handled.Therefore, the point in time when the defects occurred can no longer be determined, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.The customer's complaint is therefore confirmed, as the product is damaged, but the root cause cannot be identified by this investigation.A review of the device history record traceable to the reported lot numbers, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.Non-conformance report provided by originator.A non-conformance based review of the lot number was performed and did not reveal any potential contributing factors to the reported complaint.No root cause for the customer's reported event could be determined, since the situation that lead to the instrument failure cannot be reconstructed.As the root cause and its origin are inconclusive, further investigative or manufacturing actions are not warranted at this time.Receipt of additional relevant information or supporting materials will prompt a re-evaluation of the complaint investigation.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|