Uterine perforation [uterine perforation] jada was placed into a patient using forceps [wrong technique in device usage process].Case narrative: this initial spontaneous report originating from the united states was received from a physician via clinical educator referring to a female patient of unknown age.The patient's concurrent conditions and concomitant medications were not reported.The patient's medical history included dilation and curettage (d&c).This report concerns 1 patient and 1 device.On an unknown date, the patient was inserted with vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) for an unknown indication using forceps (wrong technique in device usage process) and there was uterine perforation.The reporter was unsure if that was a result of a d&c.No additional adverse event (ae), no product quality complaint (pqc) reported.No additional information reported.The availability of vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) was unknown.For vacuum-induced hemorrhage control system (jada system) lot number and serial number were unknown.The outcome of uterine perforation was unknown.The reporter's causality assessment was not provided.Upon internal review, the event uterine perforation was determined to be medically significant.When the lot number is unknown, a technical investigation of the specific manufacturing process which includes review of records associated with a known lot number cannot be performed.Medical device reporting criteria: serious injury.Fda code: (health effects - health impact per annex f): 4648 insufficient information (there is not yet enough information available to classify the health impact).
|