The complaint device was implanted in 2013 and the graft remains in situ, therefore the device was not returned for evaluation.Upon reviewing the photos taken of the complaint device during manufacture, it appeared that the endovascular graft was manufactured as per specifications.The work order record for ac922978 was reviewed and appeared complete and correct.The instructions for use supplied with the complaint device state: "the long-term performance of fenestrated endovascular grafts, including the stents placed in fenestrations/scallops, has not yet been established.All patients should be advised that endovascular treatment requires life-long, regular follow-up to assess their health and the performance of their endovascular graft.Patients with specific clinical findings (e.G., endoleaks, enlarging aneurysms, changes in the structure or position of the endovascular graft, or stenosis/occlusion of vessels accommodated by fenestrations) should receive enhanced follow-up." "after endovascular graft placement, patients should be regularly monitored for perigraft flow, aneurysm growth, patency of vessels accommodated by a fenestration/scallop, or changes in the structure or position of the endovascular graft.At a minimum, annual imaging is recommended, including: 1) abdominal radiographs to examine device integrity (separation between components, stent fracture or barb separation) and 2) contrast and non-contrast ct to examine aneurysm changes, perigraft flow, patency, tortuosity and progressive disease.If renal complications or other factors preclude the use of image contrast media, abdominal radiographs and duplex ultrasound may provide similar information." "potential adverse events that may occur and/or require intervention include, but are not limited to: endoleak, and endoprosthesis (improper component placement; incomplete component deployment; component migration; suture break; occlusion; infection; stent fracture; graft material wear; dilatation; erosion; puncture; perigraft flow; barb separation and corrosion)." "repeat angiogram to verify: ¿ the degree of overlap with proximal body (no less than 2 stents) ¿ the position of the contralateral limb ¿ the position of the ipsilateral iliac limb with respect to the common iliac bifurcation." and "reposition distal bifurcated body as required." the imaging received was reviewed by the medical director (md): "i agree that there was a type iii endoleak at the junction of the proximal and distal grafts, shown on the ct and the angio still frames.This appears to be where there is a marked anterior curvature of the grafts, causing the distal component of the graft to insert into the proximal portion at an angle.This is best seen on the lateral view ct.The leak is confirmed on the subsequent angiogram still frames.The subsequent secondary intervention, to place an additional stent graft across the leaking junction appears to have been successful, with cessation of the type iii endoleak.I note that there is no report of patient death, so a satisfactory secondary intervention was performed.My opinion is that the endoleak was not caused by any inherent failure of the implanted devices, but rather by the marked anterior curvature of the devices.This is usually the result of patient height decrease secondary to osteoporosis of the vertebral column and its associated crush/wedge fractures.The state of the patient¿s spine can¿t be seen or assessed on the original still frame angiograms from 2013, as they were all taken as ap views and subtraction was applied.However, on the lateral view ct scans from (b)(6) 2016, the vertebral column looks markedly degenerated, and this may have caused some height loss in the patient, with subsequent ¿buckling¿ forward of the previously-placed endograft." based on the information present, a definitive root cause of the complaint could not be identified.It is possible that one or more of the following factors could have contributed to the complaint: - graft sizing, - graft migration, - patient-related factors.It is possible that patient-related factors contributed to the complaint as per the md's evaluation, which stated that the type iii endoleak was caused by the "marked anterior curvature of the devices.This is usually the result of patient height decrease secondary to osteoporosis of the vertebral column and its associated crush/wedge fractures." there is no evidence that a device nonconformance or deficiency contributed to the complaint.
|