|
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.An evaluation of the device could not be completed.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 that the type 3a endoleak is refuted, rather there is a type 3b endoleak of the bifurcated stent graft.This is not consistent with the reported adverse event/incident.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 not reported.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 afx with duraply.Device remains implanted.
|
|
The patient was initially implanted with a bifurcated stent graft and two (2) infrarenal aortic extensions to treat an abdominal aortic aneurysm (aaa).Approximately four (4) years post initial procedure, during routine follow-up there was an observed increase of the aneurysm sac (12.1mm to 16.9mm) in the common iliac artery and a type 3a endoleak was suspected.The patient is currently being monitored while an intervention is being discussed.Additional information received per clinical assessment refuting the reported 3a endoleak, and rather confirming a 3b endoleak was present.
|