|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.No technical inquiries were received from the customer.One opened probe with tip protector in a bubble bag was received.The sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with white/clear foreign material on the port face, around the port face and inside the port.The sample was then functionally tested for aspiration, actuation, and cut.The sample was found to be nonconforming for aspiration, 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 observed at bend area, cutting edge and several locations along the inner cutter.The sample was tested with a syringe and no resistance was felt.The sample was retested for aspiration with the probe driver and was able to aspirate.The initial aspiration test failed due to an interference in the aspiration path and once the interference was removed the probe was able to aspirate.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.Based on the evaluation of the information and materials received, the complaint evaluation confirms the probe had an aspiration and cut failure.The root cause for the cut and aspiration failure 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 direction for use (dfu), the vitrectomy probe is verified for 20 minutes of use at maximum cut speed.Excess usage will also introduce a greater amount of surgical material, increasing the likelihood of partial or full occlusion of the aspiration path.No further investigative or manufacturing actions are warranted at this time as the observed cut and aspiration 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 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).
|