|
Additional information is provided in sections d.9, h.3, h.6 and h.11.The returned instrument was received in its inner and outer blister covered with the tyvek lid foil, showing the lot information.The device shows no macroscopic signs of damage.There are signs of surgery residues.The returned instrument was visually inspected with the aid of a photomicroscope using various magnifications.During the visual inspection, no abnormalities could be identified.The blade showed no bending, no burrs or rough edges were present on the returned instrument.The instrument was then functionally tested and appeared to be working normally.Therefore, the customer¿s complaint could not be confirmed.A review of the device history record traceable to the reported lot numbers, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.A non-conformance based review of the lot number was performed and did not reveal any potential contributing factors to the reported complaint.A root cause for the customers reported event could not be determined because the returned product met manufacturer¿s specifications.No action was taken as the returned instrument met specifications for tests performed in relation to the reported event.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|