|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.No technical inquiries were received from the customer.Two opened with tip protectors in trays were received for the report.Sample 1 was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face, inside the port and welded cap.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and cut.The sample was found to be conforming for actuation and nonconforming for cut.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Excessive wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos.Gouge marks on cutting edge, bend area and several other areas on the inner cutter.Sample 2 was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face, inside the port and welded cap.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and cut.The sample was found to be nonconforming for actuation and nonconforming for cut.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Excessive wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos.Gouge marks on cutting edge, bend area and several other areas on the inner cutter.A review of the device history record traceable to the lot number obtained from the device¿s rfid (radiofrequency identification) tag, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.The investigation conducted a non-conformance review of the reported lot number.No deviations were identified, and all corresponding production release specifications defined in the device master record were met.Based on the evaluation of the information and materials received, the investigation concluded that the complaint evaluation confirms that sample 1 had a cut failure and sample 2 had a cut and actuation failure.The root cause for the no actuation and cutting is the observed gouge marks.The probe was disassembled, and the components inspected.The wear observed on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos is consistent with excessive use classification.Excess usage of the probe will wear and damage the inner cutter such that the cutter function becomes poor, bent, or does not function at all.Per the dfu (direction for use), the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.No further investigative or manufacturing actions are warranted at this time due to the observed cut and actuation failures were due to excessive use of the probe by the user.Per the dfu, the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.A nonconformance investigation has been completed to investigate the trend identified for probes with would not cut or actuate issues.All probes are 100% visually inspected and tested for actuation, aspiration, and cut during manufacturing.Complaints are reviewed and monitored at regular intervals for any significant adverse trends.Complaint data for all company products is reviewed monthly to monitor for adverse trends.During the last review, adverse trends were observed for the reported product and event combination.Quality assurance has reviewed this complaint and will continue to monitor data for evidence of adverse trending and take further action, as appropriate.No further action warranted at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|