|
Blank fields on this form indicate the information is unknown, unchanged, or unavailable.Additional information: d10, h3.Investigation ¿ evaluation.A visual inspection of the returned device was conducted.A document based investigation was also performed including a review of complaint history, device history record, drawings, the instructions for use, manufacturing instructions, and quality control data.One device was returned for investigation.Inspection of the returned device was conducted and did not reveal any obvious anomalies.The plug appeared secure, and there was no physical damage to the fiber length.The fiber length measured at 299.8 cm.The fiber optics protrudes from the distal end of the cleaved cladding by 6.5mm.There was also a straightedge noted on the distal tip of the fiber optics.A review of the device history record found no non-conformances related to the reported failure mode.A review of complaint history records shows no other complaints associated with the complaint device lot.The instructions for use (ifu), provides the following information to the user related to the reported failure mode: ¿ extended lasing power.¿ continuous lasing with fiber tip in contact with tissue.¿ lasing with a contaminated or damaged proximal end.¿ improper handling.¿ poor laser beam alignment or focus.¿ never subject fiber optics to sharp bends in handling, use or storage.¿ always keep connector end dry and free from contaminates.¿ discard any fiberoptic assembly that is cracked or broken or does not meet minimum transmission standards.¿ do not exceed power limits.A review of relevant manufacturing documents was conducted.It was concluded that the device aspect in question was visually/functionally inspected by quality control and no related gaps in production or processing controls were noted.The cause for the observed complaint cannot be confirmed as the device failure analysis did not find any alleged issue of a crack along the laser fiber.Cook has concluded that based on evidence presented, investigation conclusion could not be determined.Per the quality engineering risk assessment, no further action is warranted.Cook medical has notified the appropriate personnel and will continue to monitor this device via the complaints database for similar complaints.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803.This report is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement made in it is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned; that a death or serious injury occurred; or that any cook device caused or contributed to; or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|