|
Additional narrative: no patient involvement.Date of device damage is not known.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.The device was received, the investigation could not be completed, and no conclusion could be drawn, as product is entering the complaint system.No ncrs were generated during production.Review of the device history record showed that there were no issues during the manufacture of the product that would contribute to this complaint condition.Manufacturing site: (b)(4); manufacturing date: 09.Aug.2013.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|
|
The following parts were returned to customer quality: hex screwdriver with t-handle: 314.132, lot 9661538, mfg 22-dec-2015 ¿ twisted tip.Hex screwdriver with t-handle: 314.132, lot 8467797, mfg 09-aug-2013 ¿ twisted tip.The complaint was able to be confirmed.Although the true root cause of the damage could not be determined, it is likely that excessive force during use contributed to the complaint conditions.The design was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.A device history review was performed for the returned instruments¿ lot numbers and in each instance no mrrs, ncrs or complaint-related issues were identified with the lots numbers which may have contributed to the complaint condition.During the investigation no product design issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.A visual inspection, device history record (dhr) review, service history and evaluation, functional test, and drawing review were performed as part of this investigation.This complaint is confirmed.314.132 (3.0 mm hex screwdriver with t-handle) the tips 314.132 screwdrivers were both twisted as a result of a counterclockwise torque indicative of excessive force during insertion.Replication of the complaint is not applicable as the complaint was visually confirmed.(b)(4) rev e was reviewed and no design issues were identified.A further review of the dhr records indicated that the relevant features of all units were inspected at the manufacturing site per approved inspection sheets during final inspection prior to release and no non-conformities were identified during the manufacturing process.The design was determined to be suitable for the intended use when employed and maintained as recommended.Device was used for treatment, not diagnosis.If information is obtained that was not available for the initial medwatch, a follow-up medwatch will be filed as appropriate.
|