(b)(4).Additional information was requested, and the following was obtained: i do not have much information on the patient.I was told by another physician that the linx was implanted at the same time as revision of gastric bypass.I have answered as many question as possible below.What were the first clinical symptoms that provided evidence of an erosion and when did they first occur? na.Has the patient had any dilations, egd, or other procedure between the linx implant and discovery of the erosion? please describe and include the dates of the procedures.There has been egd¿s- i do not know how many or dates of the procedures.Are pictures or videos available? no.How many beads eroded? looked to be 2.Where were the eroded beads positioned? patients right side of the esophagus.Which best describes the device removal approach? laparoscopically.Endoscopically removed the eroded beads initially & laparoscopically removed the device at a later date- no.Endoscopically removed the eroded beads & laparoscopically removed the device the same day- no.Endoscopically removed the entire device- no.Laparoscopically removed the entire device- yes.Was the patient stented? not at the this time.What is the current condition of the patient? as of yesterday- the patient was still in the hospital.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.What were the first clinical symptoms that provided evidence of an erosion and when did they first occur? has the patient had any dilations, egd, or other procedure between the linx implant and discovery of the erosion? please describe and include the dates of the procedures.How many beads eroded? what is the current condition of the patient?.
|
(b)(4).Date sent: 02/20/2019.Device analysis: overall review of the device function and dimensions show no anomalies from a device that has been reasonably changed as part of the explant procedure.Visual analysis was consistent with an explanted device, and link length and tensile force were found to meet the applicable specifications.Overall, no analysis conclusions relevant to the patient experience were found.The device lot number is unknown; therefore, the device history record could not be reviewed.
|