|
Model Number DEFLUX |
Device Problem
Calcified (1077)
|
Patient Problems
Calcium Deposits/Calcification (1758); Pain (1994); Urinary Frequency (2275); Dysuria (2684)
|
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Investigation of this event is in progress.A follow-up report will be submitted upon completion of the investigation.
|
|
Event Description
|
Published article titled "a case of dextranomer-hyaluronic acid copolymer (deflux®) implants calcification mimicking distal ureteral calculi" reports a case of deflux implants calcification mimicking distal ureteral calculi in a patient with a history of deflux injection performed 9 years prior for primary vesicoureteral reflux (vur).Additional information has been requested, but no additional information has been received.
|
|
Event Description
|
Endoscopic reflux surgery using deflux was performed when the patient was (b)(6).A total of 0.8 ml of deflux was injected under the submucosa of the right ureteral orifice.There was nothing in particular to be noted in the postoperative course including upper urinary tract dilation, and disappearance of vur was confirmed by cystourethrography during urination at the 3rd month and the 1st year.Afterwards, no urinary tract infection was observed, and a final examination was conducted.When the patient was (b)(6), he was admitted to a nearby hospital with a chief complaint of frequent urination, pain on urination and a feeling of residual urine.Although there were no abnormalities in the findings from the urine, ultrasonography revealed a shadow accompanied by an acoustic shadow at the bottom of the right bladder, and ureteral calculi were suspected.There was no hydronephrosis or hydroureter.Although the symptoms disappeared spontaneously after that, the patient was admitted.As a result of comparison with past records, the shadow that was thought to be ureteral calculi was consistent with the deflux implant from the results of repeated ultrasound examinations.Currently, the patient is (b)(6) and no recurrence of symptoms has been observed.In addition, although renal function is being followed up, the patient is stable at ckd stage 2.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Investigation of this event is in progress.A follow-up report will be submitted upon completion of the investigation.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Additional information: manufacturer name, city and state, mfr site, if follow-up, what type.The lot number of the device was not provided and the device was not returned for evaluation.Therefore, a device history record (dhr) review and product evaluation could not be conducted.Based on the current information, the root cause of the event could not be conclusively determined.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|