| Model Number |
23-0021 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Electrical Overstress (2924)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Undesired Nerve Stimulation (1980)
|
| Date of Event |
04/23/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
According to directions provided to clinicians in the instructions for use, all patients are to be tested for cardiac interactions with the device at maximum stimulation settings at the time of electrode implantation.In the reported event, a component (resistor) failure on an internal pcb of the external pulse generator (epg) caused the device amplitude output to exceed the software controlled upper amplitude limit.This created a situation where the patient was subjected to stimulation beyond the limit that had been tested for cardiac interaction.When tested during surgery at maximum settings the patient will receive a charge of 5.0uc.The component failure created a change density of 5.4uc, or 8% over the tested output.No cardiac interaction was observed during the event but the patient was exposed to conditions beyond those previously tested when the device was implanted.The resistor failure appears to have been caused by damage on the pcb of the external pulse generator during the manufacturing process.The damaged resistor went undetected by the post-pcb assembly automated optical inspection of the subcontractor, the pcb incoming visual inspection at the manufacturer and the pre and post burn-in functional testing performed prior to final release.It is believed the resistor was damaged in-process but did not fail until after distribution.The device failed at initial use as described.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient's older external pulse generator (epg, approx 8 years old) was being exchanged for a new epg.The stimulation settings were retrieved from the old epg and were programmed into the new epg.When stimulation was started with the new epg the patient experienced intense pain and stimulation was discontinued.The settings were verified but the patient again experienced intense pain when stimulation was initiated a second time.The old epg was left with the patient and the new device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|