MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO OPERATIONS CO. INTERSTIM II; STIMULATOR, ELECTRICAL, IMPLANTABLE, FOR INCONTINENCE
|
Back to Search Results |
|
Model Number 3058 |
Device Problems
Break (1069); Unable to Obtain Readings (1516)
|
Patient Problem
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Concomitant medical products: product id: 3889-28, lot#: v742618, implanted: 2011.Other relevant device(s) are: product id: 3889-28, serial/lot #: (b)(4), ubd: 03-jun-2015, udi#: (b)(4).If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Event Description
|
Information was received from a manufacturer representative (rep) regarding a patient with an implantable neurostimulator (ins) for urinary dysfunction/sacral nerve stimulation and gastrointestinal/pelvic floor.It was reported by a manufacturer representative (rep) that they were in a revision case to replace a lead and they were using the existing ins.The rep reported they were getting ??? marks for values on some case pairs.The rep noted they were with the health care physician (hcp) to do further troubleshooting.While on the call, when impedances were run at 2v c 2 c3 they were ???.When run at 2.5v 450 us c0 c3 were ???.Technical services had the rep run impedances again with parameters of 3v and 90 us.While impedances were being run the caller stated that there may have been some damage to the battery and the rep was indicating that was why they thought they may have been getting some ??? values.Technical services did not have a chance to ask questions regarding how the rep thought the ins would have been damaged.The rep indicated that after rerunning impedances all values were in the normal range.Troubleshooting resolved the reported issue.There were no symptoms reported and as the rep was in a case they couldn¿t provide any further information about the case.In a further clarifying email, the rep stated again the reason for the revision was for a damaged lead.Additional information was received from the rep on 2019-aug-07.In response to the request for clarification of the rep¿s statement of the ¿ins may be damaged¿ and if the ins had been damaged, the rep reported that it was not damaged.In response to the inquiry for cause of the ??? impedance reading the rep stated ¿not sure,¿ stating ¿parameters needed adjusted.¿ in response to the inquiry for the current status of the damaged lead and ins the rep replied that the device (the ins) passed impedance and was implanted.The rep stated they did not know the date on which the event occurred where the lead had been damaged.The rep noted that all of this information had been confirmed with the health care physician (hcp) account.There were no further complications reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Product id: 3889-28, lot# v742618, implanted: (b)(6) 2011, product type: lead.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Event Description
|
Additional information was received from a manufacturer representative (rep).The manufacturer representative (rep) reported the lead was discarded and that the impedance check was conducted after a new lead was placed.There were no further complications reported/anticipated.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|