Coloplast has not been provided any corroborating evidence to verify the information contained in this report.Without the benefit of examination and testing, coloplast is precluded from commenting on the condition of the device or the cause of the occurrence.Should additional facts prompt us to alter or supplement any information or conclusions contained in the original mdr or in any prior supplemental reports, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
As reported to coloplast, though not verified these patient with this device experienced surgical mesh erosion, cystocele, rectocele, vaginal vault prolapse, voiding dysfunction, urinary retention, uv (urethrovesical) angle ~0 degrees, partial excision of eroded surgical mesh, vaginal mucosa trimming/biopsy, paravaginal defect repair, urethrolysis, anterior/posterior colporrhaphy with sacrospinous fixation, perineoplasty, cystoscopy x 2.Intraoperative findings included surgical mesh erosion at vaginal apex with visible sutures, left paravaginal defect (repaired), immobile urethra (mobilized to ~20-30 degrees).Subsequently, approx.5 weeks postop the patient stated that she noted a popping sensation with straining followed by a progressive bulge, improved urinary flow, no further issues with urinary retention.1/3/2012- claimant states vaginal bulge is worsening and impacting her quality of life, using vaginal estrogen.In-office cystoscopy revealed normal, pvr 50 ml.Additionally, anterior vaginal wall prolapse to hymenal ring with valsalva, apex/posterior vaginal wall well supported, no evidence of mesh erosion, the patient refused conservative therapy, and adamantly stated she would like to proceed with an additional mesh implant despite history of prior mesh erosion.So, the patient underwent a cystocele and was implanted with a competitor's product.
|