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.After one week post deployment, the patient presented with abdominal pain.After two days, a computed tomography (ct) chest without contrast demonstrated that an inferior vena cava filter was partially visualized.On the next day, a duplex venous leg bilateral showed no evidence of deep vein thrombosis of the veins of the legs.After two years and two weeks later, a computed tomography (ct) abdomen without intravenous or oral contrast showed that there was a vena cava filter and this was tipped approximately 20-degrees medially.The superior aspect of the filter was at the level of the left renal vein superiorly.One of the struts at 9 o¿ clock was 3 mm beyond the wall of the vena cava.One of the struts at 11 o¿ clock was approximately 2 mm beyond the vena cava.None of the struts appeared to extend into adjacent organs.There was no retroperitoneal hematoma.There was no fracture or bending of the struts identified.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the alleged filter migration, perforation of the inferior vena cava and filter tilt.Based upon 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.
|