|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.One open with tip protector, in a blister was received.The sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face.White foreign material on the port face.Clear foreign material on the needle.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation, aspiration and cut.The sample was found to be nonconforming for all three tests.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Excessive wear on inner cutter when compared to the degree of wear based on continuous actuation of the probe visual standard photos.Gouge marks observed at the bend area.The sample was tested with a syringe and resistance was felt.A wire was inserted through the aspiration path, but does not go through.The sample was retested with a syringe, and resistance was felt.It was observed a solid material was blocking the aspiration path.Coupling was removed from the inner cutter and clear foreign material was observed in the inner diameter of the inner cutter and coupling.The sample was sent for particle analysis.The particle analysis found the foreign material to most closely match dried viscoelastic material.A review of the device history record traceable to the reported lot number, 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 was unable to identify the root cause or origin of the reported event.Additionally, no manufacturing-related deficiencies were found that potentially could have contributed to the complaint.The complaint evaluation confirms the probe had an aspiration and cut failures.The root cause of the aspiration and cut failure is the viscoelastic that was identified in the inner diameter of the inner cutter and coupling.Viscoelastic is not a material that is used in the probe manufacturing process or in the packaging process.How and when the viscoelastic was introduced into the tip cannot be determined from this evaluation and a root cause cannot be determined for the complaint as described by the customer.Most likely root cause is viscoelastic got into the tip during surgery.Additionally, 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, the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.As the root cause and its origin are inconclusive, further investigative or manufacturing actions are not warranted at this time as it appears that the observed cut and aspiration failures were due to excessive use of the probe by the user.Per the dfu (direction for use), the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.All probes are 100% visually inspected and tested for actuation, aspiration, and cut during manufacturing.Any non-conformances found are removed from the lot and scrapped.Receipt of additional relevant information or supporting materials will prompt a re-evaluation of the complaint investigation.Complaint data for all 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).
|