|
Catalog Number UNKNOWN |
Device Problem
Off-Label Use (1494)
|
Patient Problem
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Investigation is still pending.A follow up mdr will be submitted to include the investigation conclusions.
|
|
Event Description
|
Stainer, 2017, rms and the use of cook resonance metallic ureteral stent in cases of obstructive uropathy from persistent neoureteral stenosis, following kidney transplantation.Case 2 a 44-year-old lady underwent an uneventful cadaveric renal transplantation but postoperatively developed obstructive nephropathy requiring nephrostomy insertion, a laparotomy, and ureteral reimplantation.She experienced problems with a recurrent ureteral stricture requiring long-term management with double-j stenting.Subsequently, she underwent stent exchange to the 12 cm 6f cook resonance metallic stent at our center (operating time 50 minutes and radiation exposure 1563 cgy cm2.She has had a subsequent stent exchange with a significantly reduced operating time to 1 minutes (38% reduction), with a radiation exposure of 930 cgy cm2 (41% reduction).This dramatic reduction in operation time and radiation exposure is likely to plateau off with subsequent stent changes as after the initial insertion, the technique that works for that patient would hopefully be identified.No clinicoradiologic complications or stent-related symptoms have occurred in follow-up.The current management plan is to exchange the metallic stent on a yearly basis as recommended by the manufacturer.No adverse effects reported as occurring.Off-label use for non extrinsic source of obstruction.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Device evaluation: the unknown device of unknown lot number involved in this complaint was not available for evaluation.With the information provided, a document-based investigation was conducted.This complaint was raised from literature article stainer et al 2017 ¿rms and the use of cook resonance metallic ureteral stent in cases of obstructive uropathy from persistent neoureteral stenosis, following kidney transplantation.¿.Lab evaluation: the device evaluation could not be completed as the device or photographic evidence of the device was not returned for evaluation.Document review: manufacturing records review could not be completed as the lot number is unknown.However, prior to distribution all rms devices are subject to visual a visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl.Review of historical data: historical data was not reviewed as the lot number is unknown.It should be noted that the instructions for use, ifu0020, states the following: ¿intended use: used for temporary stenting of the ureter in adult patients with extrinsic ureteral obstruction.¿.There is evidence to suggest that the customer did not follow the instructions for use.Image review: an image was not returned for evaluation.Root cause review: definitive root cause of off label use can be concluded based on customer/rep testimony.It is known that the device was used for obstructive nephropathy, which is considered a non-extrinsic obstruction.As per ifu, the rms device is intended to be used for ¿temporary stenting of the ureter in adult patients with extrinsic ureteral obstruction.¿ summary: complaint is confirmed based on customer and/or rep testimony.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence.As per the literature article, ¿no clinicoradiologic complications or stent-related symptoms have occurred in follow-up.¿ complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|
|
Event Description
|
Supplemental report is being submitted due to the completion of the investigation on 03-mar-2023.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|