|
Additional information is provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.The returned instrument was received at the manufacturing site in its outer blister, covered with they tyvek lid foil showing the batch information.The inner blister that offers protection during shipment was not used.The returned device evidently shows macroscopic signs of damage, namely that the metal tube is broken off close to the plastic tip.There are signs of surgery residue.The broken off tube was not contained in the shipment.The returned instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope using various magnifications.From the deformation at the breaking site, it can be seen that the tube was bent too far until it eventually broke off.As the blister was opened by the customer, the product was handled.Therefore, the point in time when the defect occurred can no longer be determined, nor can the strain put on the device be reconstructed.The customer's complaint is therefore confirmed but the root cause cannot be identified by this investigation.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 customers reported event could be determined, since the situation that lead to the instrument 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.Complaint data for all manufacturer products is reviewed monthly to monitor for adverse trends.During the last review, no adverse trends were observed for the reported product and event combination.The complaint data will continue to be monitored for evidence of adverse trending and further action will be taken, as appropriate.No further action warranted at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
|
A physician reported that during combination surgery when removing an ophthalmic loop from inside the eye, the tip of loop was torn off and fell back into the eye, but it remained inside the trocar, so it was removed again during the same surgery.The surgery was completed after replacing the product with another one.There was no patient harm.
|