Manufacturing review: a device history record review could not be performed as the lot number is unknown.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.The medical records included images.The image review was documented in the medical records.Medical records were provided and reviewed.Approximately seven years and six months of post deployment, an x-ray kidney, ureter and bladder (kub) demonstrated that an inferior vena cava filter was identified.Also, a computed tomography (ct) abdomen showed penetration of 3 inferior vena cava filter limbs, 1 abutted the aorta, 1 penetrated the vertebral body and 1 in right paravertebral space.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for perforation of inferior vena cava (ivc).Based on the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient and the reason for deployment was not provided.At some time post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter struts perforated.The device has not been removed and there were no reported attempts made to retrieve the filter.The patient experienced abdominal pain; however, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|