It was reported that the patient visited the hospital two weeks before surgery due to his inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) was not working properly.Inspection confirmed that the left cylinder had a tear that caused a saline leak, therefore, the left cylinder was replaced.The cause of the left cylinder tear has not been elucidated in detail in the hospital.The patient had a good outcome following the procedure.
|
The complaint component was returned and analyzed, and the reported allegation was not confirmed via product analysis.The ams700 ipp cylinder was visually inspected.The cylinder body was identified to be cut in half that was the result of sharp instrument damage consistent with explant damage.Due to this damage being consistent with explant it will be considered a secondary failure.Product analysis was unable to confirm the reported event as sharp instrument damage was identified.The product record review indicated that the reported events do not represent an unanticipated event.Review of the manufacturing documentation confirmed all required in-process and final inspections and testing were completed.Based on this investigation, the investigation conclusion code of cause not established was chosen because cylinder was identified to damaged cut in half, as sharp instrument damage was identified, and it will be considered a secondary failure.However, the most probable cause could not be confirmed.The event cannot be reproduced or substantiated; therefore, no escalation to ncep, capa or scar is required.
|
It was reported that the patient visited the hospital two weeks before surgery due to his inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) was not working properly.Inspection confirmed that the left cylinder had a tear that caused a saline leak, therefore, the left cylinder was replaced.The cause of the left cylinder tear has not been elucidated in detail in the hospital.The patient had a good outcome following the procedure.
|