Manufacturing review: a lot history review was performed.This is the only complaint to date for this lot number.Therefore, a device history record review is not required.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were provided and reviewed.There were no device deficiencies identified within the medical records.Approximately, four years nine months of post deployment, the patient experienced abdominal pain, but the ultrasound appeared normal.Around one years later and eleven months later, the patient again experienced abdominal pain, but the ultrasound appeared normal apart from mild/moderate hepatomegaly.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for perforation of the inferior vena cava (ivc) and filter tilt as no objective evidence has been provided to confirm any alleged deficiency with the filter.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.Expiry date: 06/2014.
|
It was reported through the litigation process that a vena cava filter was placed in a patient due to the insertion of retrievable inferior vena cava filter with c-arm, repair of a ventral recurrent incisional hernia with a physio mesh and lysis of adhesions.At some time post filter deployment, it was alleged that the filter tilted and 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.
|