Literature review: comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer.United european gastroenterology journal 2017, vol.5(3) 365¿373 author(s) 2016.Reprints and permissions: sagepub.Co.Uk/journalspermissions.Nav doi: 10.1177/2050640616662160 journals.Sagepub.Com/home/ueg.Investigation evaluation: a product evaluation was not performed in response to this report because the product said to be involved was not provided to cook for evaluation.The report could not be confirmed.A review of the device history record could not be conducted because the lot number was not provided.Investigation conclusion: we could not conduct a complete investigation because the product said to be involved was not returned for evaluation.A definitive cause for the reported observation could not be determined.There is no evidence to suggest the report is due to a device failure.The ifu states the following potential complications: ¿potential complications associated with placement and use of a peg tube include, but are not limited to: bronchopulmonary aspiration and pneumonia, respiratory distress or airway obstruction, peritonitis or septic shock, colocutaneous, gastrocolocutaneous or small bowl fistula, gastric dilation, sigmoid intra-abdominal herniation and volvulus, persistent fistula following peg removal, esophageal injury, necrotizing fasciitis, candida cellulitis, improper placement of inability to place peg tube, tube dislodgement or migration, hemorrhage, and tumor metastasis." prior to distribution, all peg 24 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy set - pull are subjected to a visual and functional inspection to ensure device integrity.Corrective action: corrective action is not warranted at this time based on the quality engineering risk assessment.Quality assurance will continue to monitor for complaint trends and reassess the risk assessment results as post market feedback continues to become available.
|