|
Device evaluation: the customer's statement "fogging during use" cannot be confirmed.In relation to the customer's fault report, the optics were subjected to a vacuum test and compressed air was applied to the distal and proximal areas, which did not cause any fogging of the cover glasses.Furthermore, the distal and proximal ends were cooled down with ice spray to cause fogging.However, no fogging could be caused or reproduced.Further examination of the optics revealed minimal surface scratches at the distal end.The distal cover glass shows slight deposits that could be removed by manually wiping with alcohol.There are minimal residues in the rod lens system, but these have no negative impact on the image display.No further damage that could negatively affect the image display could be found on the optics available to us.A possible cause may have been a temperature difference between the optics and the patient's body temperature, which can lead to fogging.Another possible cause may be fogging or contamination of the camera head used, which led to image impairment.The examined optics comply with the currently valid specifications.The above conducted investigations did not reveal a root cause related to the labelling, the device or its history.All production related quality checks were passed, and no non-conformities were identified in the devices manufacturing records.The labelling was found to contain adequate instructions and warnings.The complaint history did not reveal any pickup in similar complaints; no trend was identified.The event is filed under internal karl storz complaint id: (b)(4).
|