It was reported that the patient had the inflatable penile prosthesis removed as it was not possible to activate/inflate the device due to fluid loss.During the surgery, an iatrogenic lesion of the neobladder occurred.The lesion was a perforation of the neobladder that occurred during the device explant.This led to an additional incision and neobladder repair.Due to his permanent anticoagulation, the patient also revealed a massive scrotal hematoma.It was expected that the recovery would take more time as usual.Refer to mfr report number 2183959-2021-13938.
|
It was reported that the patient had the inflatable penile prosthesis removed as it was not possible to activate/inflate the device due to fluid loss.During the surgery, an iatrogenic lesion of the neobladder occurred.The lesion was a perforation of the neobladder that occurred during the device explant.This led to an additional incision and neobladder repair.Due to his permanent anticoagulation, the patient also revealed a massive scrotal hematoma.It was expected that the recovery would take more time as usual.Refer to mfr report number 2183959-2021-13938.
|
Investigation summary: with all the available information, boston scientific concludes, based on analysis results, the cause that contributed to the reported that the neobladder was perforated was not confirmed.Product analysis was unable to confirm the reported event.Device history record review (dhr): the device history record review (dhr) confirmed the device met all manufacturing specifications, a risk review confirmed that the event is accounted for in the risk documentation.Label review: a labeling review found no evidence of device off-label use or failure to follow instructions.Device technical analysis: upon receipt at our post market quality assurance laboratory, this device was thoroughly analyzed.The ams700 spherical reservoir was visually inspected, leak tested and microscopically examined; no visual damages were found upon inspection.Under the microscope, the reservoir had wear at a fold in the reservoir shell; no leak was found in the reservoir shell.This wear would not affect the functionality of the device.Product analysis was unable to confirm the reported event.Investigation conclusion: based on this investigation a clear probable cause for the event was not established; therefore, the conclusion code of adverse event related to procedure was chosen because the reported events could not be confirmed or substantiated through investigation.
|