|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.Two opened probes, with tip protector, in a tray with other items were received for the report.Sample 1: the sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and aspiration.The sample was found to be conforming for both tests.Sample 2: the sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation and aspiration.The sample was found to be conforming for actuation and nonconforming for aspiration.The probe was disassembled and the components inspected.Nominal 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 cutting edge and bend area.The sample was tested with a syringe and resistance was felt.A wire was inserted through the aspiration path.The sample was retested with a syringe, and resistance was felt.Solid material was observed to be blocking the aspiration path near the tip of the inner cutter.Solid material is blocking the aspiration path and cannot be removed for further evaluation.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 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 does not confirm the probe had an aspiration failure for sample 1 and confirms the probe had an aspiration failure for sample 2.The root cause of the aspiration failure of sample 2 is due to foreign material in the aspiration path.How and when foreign material was introduced into the aspiration path cannot be determined from this evaluation; however, the foreign material is most likely surgical material from the surgical use of the probe.As the root cause and its origin are inconclusive, further investigative or manufacturing actions are not warranted at this time as sample 1 was conforming for aspiration and the exact root cause of the foreign material in the aspiration path of sample 2 could not be determined from the evaluation performed.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, no 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).
|