|
Additional information was provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.The product under investigation is not a serviceable device.Therefore, a service record review was not performed.However, a laser probe (lp) was returned for testing on this investigation.A manufacturing device history record (dhr) review was performed prior to product release to ensure that the product was manufactured in compliance with the device master record.Based on the assessment, the product met release criteria.A non-conformance based review of the lot number was performed.There were no relevant contributing factors.A review for complaints reported against this lot number was performed.There were no relevant complaints found, as part of this investigation.There was a laser probe received for testing on this investigation.A visual assessment of the returned sample revealed a detached nitinol.The returned sample was connected to a calibrated system and was successfully recognized.The returned sample was connected to a calibrated system but had a recognition failure.Further analysis found foreign substance adhered to the cannula.However, as to how or when it became damaged remains inconclusive.The cannula portion of the laser probe was found damaged.How or when tip became damaged remains inconclusive.Thus, based on the information obtained, the root cause of the reported event is inconclusive.Manufacturer will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|