(b)(4).A device history record review was performed on the epidural needle with no relevant findings.Visual inspection could not be performed as no sample was returned by the customer for investigation.However, the customer did return a photo that clearly shows a bent tip on an epidural needle (reference files (b)(4)).Additional testing of the needle tips was performed by the manufacturing site to determine tip strength.Testing was performed to compare needle tips strengths from five available sets of different needles.The test concluded that the needle sets had very similar results.A review of design change history for part number nz-05500-001 was performed as a part of this investigation.No design changes have been made to this product in the past two years that would have led to this complaint.A review of the quality inspection report from the vendor of the cannula (nz-05500-001) found no material issues for lot # 72p17d0042 (vendor lot # mm170325aj).Other remarks: a corrective action is not required at this time.The damage was discovered during use.Therefore, based on the photo of the sample received and the time of discovery, operational context caused or contributed to this event.Complaint verification testing could not be performed as no sample was returned for analysis.However, the reported complaint of the needle tip being bent was confirmed based on a photo received from the customer.A device history record review was performed on the epidural needle with no evidence to indicate a manufacturing related issue.No material issues were found from the vendor for the cannula.Also, a needle tip strength study was performed by the manufacturing site which revealed very similar results with five different sets of needles.Therefore, based upon the information and photo provided, the observed needle damage, and the time of discovery, operational context caused or contributed to this event.
|