| Model Number |
BEA22-70/I16-30 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Device-Device Incompatibility (2919)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
12/03/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device involved in the event will not be returned for evaluation as it remains implanted in the patient.Patient medical records and imaging studies will be requested for further evaluation by the clinical specialist.If additional information pertinent to the incident is obtained, a follow-up report will be submitted.Device iteration is afx2.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was initially implanted with an afx2 bifurcated stent graft and a vela infrarenal stent graft extension.This procedure is outside the indications of use due to concomitant use with products outside the ifu (previously placed bare metal stents in the external iliac arteries on unknown date).Approximately seven (7) months post initial procedure a computed tomography (ct) scan identified a possible type iiia endoleak.The physician completed a successful reintervention and implanted a vela stent graft extension and two (2) non-endologix excluder devices.The endoleak was resolved and the patient is doing well.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported adverse event/incident was investigated in alignment with endologix operating procedures and work instructions.Where possible, it is endologix practice to make at least three good faith efforts to retrieve a reported adverse event/incident related device as well as medical records and medical imaging.An evaluation of the manufacturing record was completed.A review of the part number/lot number combination needed for device identification shows the device to have been properly manufactured and released in accordance with the device master record.The review confirms there were no manufacturing or processing non-conformities identified that would contribute to the reported adverse event/incident.The device was not returned to endologix for evaluation because it remains implanted.A clinical evaluation of the adverse event/incident was completed.An examination of medical records and/or medical imaging received by endologix shows the type iiia endoleak event/incident was refuted.There is no evidence of device malfunction.This is not consistent with the reported adverse event/incident.The clinical evaluation also shows reasonable evidence to suggest there is no evidence of device malfunction.Procedure-related harms, device, user, procedure, or anatomy relatedness of this complaint could not be determined with the medical records available for review.The final patient status was reported as being stable post the re-intervention.No additional investigation of this reported adverse event/incident is planned.However, should additional information relevant to the investigation outcome become available, a follow-up report will be submitted.Endologix will continue to monitor this and similar adverse events/incidents.Device iteration is afx2.Corrections: b5: describe event or problem updated.G1,2: contact office- name has been updated.G4: awareness date.H6: device code: remove code 2919.H6: result code: remove code 3233.H6: conclusion code: remove code 11.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was initially implanted with an afx2 bifurcated stent graft and a vela infrarenal stent graft extension.This procedure is outside the indications of use due to concomitant use with products outside the ifu (previously placed bare metal stents in the external iliac arteries on unknown date).Approximately seven (7) months post initial procedure a computed tomography (ct) scan identified a possible type iiia endoleak.The physician completed a successful reintervention and implanted a vela stent graft extension and two (2) non-endologix excluder devices.The endoleak was resolved and the patient is doing well.Additional information: clinical assessment determined that the type iiia endoleak event/incident was refuted.There is no evidence of device malfunction.The final patient status was reported being stable post the re-intervention.A complaint is not warranted since there is no alleged deficiency related to identity, quality, durability, reliability, safety, effectiveness, or performance of the device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|