|
Model Number M00565050 |
Device Problem
Positioning Problem (3009)
|
Patient Problem
Perforation (2001)
|
Event Date 01/24/2014 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that a wallflex enteral colonic stent was implanted during a colonic stenting procedure performed on (b)(6) 2014.According to the complainant, the stent placement is a bridge-to-surgery stenting due to a total bowel obstruction and to treat an acute 2.5cm stricture within the sigmoid colon.Reportedly, the patient¿s anatomy was tortuous.On the evening of (b)(6) before midnight, the stent was able to be deployed to the patient without issue.Few hours after stent placement, on (b)(6) 2014, the physician performed an x-ray to the patient and was found out that the stent seemed to be on the bad position.A free gas in the peritoneum was noted and a perforation at the proximal side of the stricture, where the proximal end part of the stent had been located.The physician performed laparotomy procedure and immediately converted into a hartman surgery.A temporary stoma was placed on the patient and is planned to be reconstructed to an anastomosis.The stent was removed from the patient during the surgical procedure.In the physician¿s assessment, the stent was placed in a curved sigmoideum anatomy and in the 4cm healthy lumen that could have caused the perforation.There was no alleged malfunction of the stent.The patient was reported to have recovered well and was discharged from the hospital in stable condition.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Reported event of stent positioning/placement problem.Investigation results.The device was not returned; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.A labeling review was performed, and from the information available this device was used per the directions for use (dfu) / product label.Perforation is listed as a potential adverse event in the dfu for this product as a potential post stent placement complications related to the use of this device.Therefore, the most probable root cause is anticipated procedural complication.A review of the device history record (dhr) confirmed that the device met all material, assembly, and product specifications at the time of release to distribution.A search of the complaint database confirmed that no similar complaints exist for the specified batch.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|