|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.Two opened probes with tip protector in a tray were received for the report.Sample 1: the sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with white/clear foreign material on the port, around the port face and on the needle.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and cut.The sample was found to be conforming for both functional tests.The probe engine was disassembled, and the components were inspected.Diaphragm, spacer, and o-rings are all intact.Sample 2: the sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with the probe needle broken off at the stiffener sleeve.No functional testing could be performed due to the probe needle broken condition.No wear assessment could be performed due to the probe needle broken condition.A review of the device history record traceable to the lot number obtained from the device¿s radio frequency identification (rfid) 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.Sample 1: based on the evaluation of the information and materials received, the investigation concluded that the root cause of the reported event is not determined as the returned sample was conforming for functional testing.Sample 2: 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 was unable to confirm the reported cut failure due to probe needle broken condition.How and when the probe needle became broken cannot be determined form this evaluation.The most likely root cause is handling at any point after the probe was shipped from the manufacturing site.Because sample 1 was conforming and the root cause of sample 2 was inconclusive, further investigative or manufacturing actions are not warranted at this time as reported actuation failure was unable to be confirmed and an exact root cause for the broken probe needle could not be determined from this evaluation.A nonconformance investigation was 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.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 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).
|