|
No patient involvement was reported.Date of device breakage is not known.Device is an instrument and is not implanted/explanted.Dhr review: dhr not available as device is older than 15 years.At this time the manufacturing documents for instruments had to be stored for 10 years.This was according to filing and archiving of specification documents, which was in place till august 2014.Customer quality (cq) engineering investigation: this complaint is confirmed.A distal portion of the handle has broken off and was not returned.The approximate size of the missing chunk of handle is 8mm x 11mm x 6mm.Whether this complaint can be replicated at customer quality (cq) is not applicable for this complaint condition as the returned device is already broken.No new malfunctions were identified as a result of the investigation.However, complaint category of "nicked/gouged/chipped" was selected at the time of complaint intake based upon the reported information, the failure code of "broken : procedural step unknown" was selected for this investigation summary to account for the as received condition of the device at cq.A visual inspection under 5x magnification and drawing review were performed at cq for the returned device as part of this investigation.No product design issues or discrepancies were observed.Visual inspection at cq confirmed the reported complaint condition.A distal portion of the handle has broken off and was not returned.The approximate size of the missing chunk of handle is 8mm x 11mm x 6mm.The entire device shows cumulative wear commensurate with over 15 years of field use and repeated sterilization cycles.Dhr review : part #: 399.36 - lot #: 6019.Dhr not available as device is older than 15 years.At this time the manufacturing documents for instruments had to be stored for 10 years.This was according to filing and archiving of specification documents, which was in place till august 2014.A material check or hardness check or dimensional inspection were not performed at cq as there is no indication that the material or hardness or dimensions would have contributed to this complaint for this 15+ year old reusable instrument breaking.Periosteal elevator assembly drawings were reviewed during this investigation.No product design issues or discrepancies were observed.Most likely due to over 15 years of cumulative wear and repeated sterilization cycles and possibly using the device as a lever ultimately degrading the handle material.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.
|