|
Additional information is provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.The product under investigation is not a serviceable device.Therefore, a service record review was not performed.However, a laser probe (lp) was returned for testing on this investigation.A non-conformance based review of the lot number was performed and did not reveal any potential contributing factors to the reported complaint.A manufacturing device history record (dhr) review was performed prior to product release to ensure that the product was manufactured in compliance with the device master record.Based on the assessment, the product met release criteria.A review for complaints reported against this lot number was performed.No similar complaints were reported for the product lot under investigation.The lp was received for testing on this investigation.A visual assessment of the returned sample revealed damage to the articulating tip.Functional testing was unable to be performed to confirm the reported event.However, as to how or when it became damaged remains inconclusive.The returned sample was tested and found to be physically nonconforming and therefore could not be functionally tested, as such.How or when the articulating tip became damaged remains inconclusive.Thus, based on the information obtained, the root cause of the reported event is inconclusive.Manufacturer will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|