|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.One opened probe was received, with a tip protector, in a bag, for the report.The sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and aspiration.The sample was found to be conforming for aspiration, and nonconforming for actuation.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Excessive wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos.Gouge marks at the bend area and several other locations along the inner cutter.A review of the device history record traceable to the lot number obtained from the device¿s radio frequency identification (rfid) tag, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.The investigation conducted a non-conformance review of the reported lot number.No deviations were identified, and all corresponding production release specifications defined in the device master based on the evaluation of the information and materials received, the investigation concluded that the root cause of the reported event is not determined as the returned sample was conforming for functional testing.The complaint evaluation does not confirm the probe had an aspiration failure.The evaluation indicates the probe had an actuation failure.The aspiration function of the probe was conforming; however, the observed actuation failure could have caused the cutter to stay in the port of the needle long enough to obstruct aspiration flow at the time the reported event was observed.The root cause for the actuation failure is the observed gouge marks.The probe was disassembled, and the components inspected.The wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos is consistent with excessive use classification.Excess usage of the probe will wear and damage the inner cutter such that the cutter function becomes poor, bent, or does not function at all.Per the direction for use (dfu), the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.No further investigative or manufacturing actions are warranted at this time due to that the returned sample met specification for aspiration, and it appears that the observed actuation failure was due to excessive use of the probe by the user.All probes are 100% visually inspected and tested for actuation, aspiration, and cut during manufacturing.Any non-conformances found are removed from the lot and scrapped.Receipt of additional relevant information or supporting materials will prompt a re-evaluation of the complaint investigation.Complaint data for all company products is reviewed monthly to monitor for adverse trends.During the last review, no adverse trends were observed for the reported product and event combination.Quality assurance has reviewed this complaint and will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.No further action warranted at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|