|
The returned instrument was received in its inner and outer blister covered by tyvek foil shows the lot information.The inner blister was upside down in the outer blister.The returned product shows macroscopic signs of damage, namely that the soft tip almost is torn off.The instrument shows no surgery residues.The returned instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope using various magnifications.The visual inspection confirmed that the polyurethane soft tip is sheared off near to where it is bonded to the metal tube.This confirms the customer¿s complaint.The instrument was then functionally tested regarding their aspiration/irrigation properties.It could be shown that there is no leakage and no occlusion of the instrument and the aspiration as well as the irrigation works as expected for the instrument.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.However, the root cause of this specific damage cannot be identified conclusively.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 customers 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).
|