|
Updated fields: d4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6, h11.The perforator was not returned for evaluation; therefore, an evaluation of the device could not be performed.Lot number information has been provided; therefore, device history record (dhr) was reviewed, and no anomalies were found.The root cause(s) of the reported issue could not be determined, however, a potential root cause is "inadequate spring (e.G., k-factor, length)".If additional relevant information becomes available in the future, this complaint will be reopened, and the respective evaluation performed.Trends will be monitored for this and similar issues.At present, we consider this complaint to be closed.Additional information received: - did the event well occurred during surgery after drilling one or several holes (patient under anesthesia)? "yes, during surgery after drilling the first hole." - did it lead any increase of surgery delay? inferior or superior to 30 min? "no.The burr did damage the dura mater and impress the cortex of the brain." - how was the medical team able to finalize the procedure? (use another product? another method?) "we changed the burr." - is the patient an adult? elderly? a child? an infant? "adult" - manufacturer of the drill used with the perforator? "do not know personally." - was the drill electric or pneumatic? "electric." - did the perforator click in place in the drill? "i did not personally install the burr in de drill, please ask the instrument nurse." - are the recommended spring tests being performed between each burr hole? "we did test the spring before use." - was the angle of approach perpendicular as the ifu states? "yes." - was the perpendicular approach maintained through the drilling process or was there any rocking motion included? "perpendicular approach only." - was there constant downward pressure? "yes.".
|
|
Updated fields: d4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6, h11.The perforator was returned for evaluation: dhr - no anomalies were identified that occurred during the manufacture or packaging of the device.Failure analysis - functional test - spring - the unit was freed by drilling 1 test hole.Once freed, the unit successfully passed the spring test and functioned as designed.Functional test - the drill was successfully validated with the tachometer.A reading of 917 rpm was measured per process.The specification is 850-1250 rpm.Unit successfully drilled 5 holes, and the perforator functioned as designed.The complaint cannot be confirmed.The device passed all tests and worked as expected.Root cause - the root cause is undetermined and was unable to be confirmed in the complaint evaluation.
|