|
Per investigation by the manufacturing site: the analysis of item 27040xb, lot uo02 clearly shows that the breakage of the ceramic beak is not attributable to a manufacturing or assembly defect.Instead, the available findings paint a consistent picture of failure caused by use or user error.The combination of irregular fracture edges, multiple independent fracture lines, and the ceramic and adhesive residues remaining in the shaft indicates that microcracks were already present in the ceramic prior to the final fracture.These microcracks typically result from mechanical pre-damage such as impact loads, drops, or tilting during handling or reprocessing.Additionally, the partially washed-out adhesive indicates a progressive weakening of the adhesive bond, as facilitated by repeated thermal and chemical reprocessing cycles.Taking all technical findings into account, the damage is therefore highly likely the result of mechanical stress during use or reprocessing resulting progressive microcracking in the ceramic, and a partial reduction in the adhesive bond over the course of use.These factors ultimately led to a brittle final fracture of the ceramic tip during the procedure.Based on the characteristics of the damage and the findings, a manufacturing defect can be ruled out with a high degree of probability.The conducted investigations did not reaveal 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 e.G.Instructions for use.Resectoscope sheaths.218dcd_en_v2.1_07-2024_ifu_fda.This event is filed under internal complaint id (b)(4).
|