(b)(4).Document review including ifu review: prior to distribution rms-060022-r devices are subjected to a visual inspection and functional checks to ensure device integrity.These inspections and functional checks are outlined in internal procedures in place at cirl.A review of the manufacturing records could not be complete as the lot number is unknown.As per instructions for use, ifu0020-16, ¿the stent must not remain indwelling more than twelve (12) months.If the patient¿s status permits, the stent may be replaced with a new stent.¿ ¿patients should be checked at regular intervals utilizing techniques such as abdominal x-ray (kub film).Patients using calcium supplements must be more closely monitored for possible stent encrustation.The stent must be removed if encrustation hampers drainage.¿ ¿potential adverse events associated with indwelling ureteral stents include: diminished urine drainage/stent occlusion, fistula formation including arterioureteral fistula, hemorrhage, hydronephrosis, infection, loss of renal function, pain/discomfort, perforation of kidney, renal pelvis, ureter and/or bladder, peritonitis, pyuria, stent degradation/fracture, stent dislodgement/migration, stent encrustation, tissue ingrowth, ureteral reflux, urinary symptoms (frequency, urgency, incontinence, dysuria, hematuria), urinary tract tissue erosion.¿ root cause review: information provided: ¿2.3.3 how long was the stent in-dwelling? 12+ months 2.3.5 how often was the stent checked during the in-dwelling time? physician did not provide information¿ a definitive root cause could not be determined from the available information.A possible root cause may be attributed to the indwell time of the stent being exceeded.It is also not stated if the patient had routine check-ups which is also stated to be carried out in the ifu.Summary: complaint is confirmed based on customer testimony.According to the initial reporter, the patient did not experience any adverse effects due to this occurrence but required an additional procedure to place an alternative stent.Complaints of this nature will continue to be monitored for potential emerging trends.
|
As initially reported to customer relations: a female patient of unknown age had a resonance stent, g34109, placed approximately 12 months prior to this event.With the indwell time the physician had planned to do a normal stent exchange.The stent was removed using graspers.The physician was going to place another of the same stent however the wire was unable to go back up due to inflammation in the ureter, therefore a regular stent, bard inlay stent, was placed instead.Fda mdr reporting required: this event meets the criteria of an fda ¿serious injury¿ report as per fda guidelines ¿medical device reporting for manufacturers (2016)¿ section 2.13 and 2.15 based on the requirement for surgical intervention as another device was placed, also based on the device malfunction reporting precedence for this device family for the issue of "stent does not drain".
|