|
(b)(4).Updated sections: b4,b5,d9,g3,g6,h2,h3,h6,h11.The device was returned to the factory for evaluation on 01/28/2026.An investigation was conducted on 01/29/2026.A visual inspection was conducted.Signs of clinical use and evidence of slight blood was observed on the baffle.The device was securely assembled onto a reference retractor blade by sliding the stabilizer base onto the rail and locking the lever.The knob was evaluated for its ability to tighten the flexlink arm while the locking lever was in both the locked and unlocked positions.The knob of the device was hard to turn, but with force, the knob was able to be turn and tighten the arm.Based on the returned condition of the device as well as the evaluation results, the reported failure "mechanical problem" was confirmed.A manufacturing engineering evaluation was conducted.A mechanical evaluation was performed.The complaint device did show signs of clinical use.Manufacturing engineering investigated the potential mechanical failure by attaching the complaint device on the standard blade to replicate this mechanical failure of flex link arm not being able to tighten upon turning the knob in clockwise direction.Outcome of this test showed no sign of issues with complaint device being able to attach to the standard blade, remaining in locking position, and holding tension in the flex link arm upon turning the knob in clockwise direction.Therefore, mechanical failure of flex link arm not being able to tighten was not confirmed.The lot #3000479002 history record review was completed.There were no ncmrs, rework, or deviations documented for the reported lot number.Based on the dhr/lhr review results, it was determined that there is no relation between the batch manufacturing process and the reported failure.
|