It was reported that the inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) device was not working properly, so the patient visited the hospital a month before surgery.As a result of the examination, the implant was completely replaced at the discretion of the doctor due to a crack in the reservoir connecting tube.The cause of the connection tube crack has not been confirmed by the hospital.After this operation, the patient improved.
|
It was reported that the inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) device was not working properly, so the patient visited the hospital a month before surgery.As a result of the examination, the implant was completely replaced at the discretion of the doctor due to a crack in the reservoir connecting tube.The cause of the connection tube crack has not been confirmed by the hospital.After this operation, the patient improved.
|
Investigation summary: with all the available information, boston scientific concludes that the device was visually inspected, and the cylinder 1 had a leak in the kink resistant tubing (krt), and a hole was visually identified.This leak is identified as a result of sharp instrument damage, which is consistent with explant damage and considered a secondary failure.The tubing in cylinder 2 was not returned for analysis, however it was noted in cylinder 2 that the tube was cut down to the input sleeve junction.Both cylinders had wear at fold in cylinder body.Cylinder 1 was not functionally tested due to hole identified, and cylinder 2 was pressure tested and performed within specification.Based on the observed cut tubing and the cylinder performed within specification, the reported allegation is unable to be confirmed.Device history review (dhr): the device history record (dhr) confirmed that the devices met all material, assembly and performance specifications.Device technical analysis: visual inspection showed that the cylinder 1 had a leak in the kink resistant tubing (krt), and a hole was visually identified.This leak is identified as a result of sharp instrument damage, which is consistent with explant damage and considered a secondary failure.The tubing in cylinder 2 was not returned for analysis, however it was noted in cylinder 2 that the tube was cut down to the input sleeve junction.Both cylinders had wear at fold in cylinder body.Cylinder 1 was not functionally tested due to hole identified, and cylinder 2 was pressure tested and performed within specification.Investigation conclusion: based on this investigation, the investigation conclusion code of cause not established was chosen because the tubing was not returned for analysis; however, the most probable cause could not be confirmed.Based on the results of this investigation, no escalation is required.
|