|
A manufacturing related potential cause was not suspected, therefore, per franchise complaint product investigation procedure no manufacturing record evaluation is required.Visual inspection: the hammer guide f/ten (p/n:359.218, lot #: 9513130) was returned and received at us customer quality (cq).Upon visual inspection, it was observed that the distal threads of the device were broken.There were scratches on the device and the etch was unreadable which has no impact on the functionality of the device.No other issues were identified with the returned components of the device.Device failure/defect identified? yes.Dimensional inspection: no dimensional inspection can be performed due to post-manufacturing damage.Documentation/ specification review: the following drawing(s) was reviewed; elastic nail.No design issues or discrepancies were found during this investigation.Complaint confirmed? yes.Investigation conclusion: visual inspection and document specification review of the received device was performed at cq.The complaint is being confirmed as it is observed that the distal threads of the device were broken.While a definitive root cause could not be determined, it is possible that the device might have got encountered unintended forces.During the investigation, no unidentified product design/manufacturing issues or discrepancies were observed that may have contributed to the complaint condition.Based on the investigation findings, it has been determined that no corrective and/or preventative action is proposed.Additional monitoring for any potential safety signals will be conducted through complaint trending and other post-market safety surveillance activities.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.
|