|
A non-healthcare professional reported that the catheter did not cut when inserted, it began to make strange noise, and metal part of the catheter detached from the vitrector control during vitrectomy surgery.The procedure was completed on same day by replacing the product with new one.There was no patient impact.
|
|
Additional information provided in d.9, h.2, h.3, h.6.And h.11.No technical inquiries were received from the customer.Two opened probes with tip protector in a tray were received for the report of evaluation.Sample 1: the sample was visually inspected and found to be nonconforming with orange/brown foreign material on the port face and inside the port.No tip damage was observed.The sample was then functionally tested for actuation, aspiration and cut.The sample was found to be conforming for actuation and aspiration and nonconforming for cut.No abnormal noise was observed.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 on cutting edge, bend area and bottom area below the port on the inner cutter.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 photo attached to the file was reviewed by the manufacturing site.Photo shows a label with reported lot number.Reported issue cannot be confirmed from photo.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 concluded that the complaint evaluation confirms that sample 1 probe had a cut failure and does not confirm broken tip or abnormal noise.The cut failure of sample 2 cannot be confirm due to probe broken condition.The root cause for the no cutting of sample 1 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.No further investigative or manufacturing actions are warranted at this time as broken tip and abnormal noise of sample 1 was not confirmed and the observed cut failure of sample 1 was 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.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).
|