|
A nurse reported that during vitrectomy surgery, an ophthalmic revolution handle had installed new forceps tips multiple times on the handle, but none of them could be installed.The procedure was completed on the same day by installing the new forceps tip and was used normally on the same and old handle model.No patient harm was reported.
|
|
Additional information provided in sections d.9., h.3., h.6., and h.11.The investigation is completed based on the sample evaluation outlined below.The returned instrument was received in a sterilization foil bag.The original packaging was missing.The product shows macroscopic signs of damage, namely that the front part is severely scratched and has sharp burrs marks on the edges.It was not possible to assemble a tip.As the blister was opened by the customer, the product was handled.Therefore, the point in time when the malfunction occurred can no longer be determined, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.The customer¿s complaint is confirmed, but a root cause for the failure cannot be determined.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 handle 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).
|