| Model Number |
M00568211 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Detachment of Device or Device Component (2907)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
03/25/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).The device has not been received for analysis.Upon receipt and completion of the problem analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that an endovive standard peg kit push method was used during a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (peg) placement procedure performed on (b)(6) 2022.During the procedure, the peg tube broke at the transition zone as it was being inserted through the patient's mouth up to the stoma site.The peg tube had not gone through the stoma and was stuck in the gastric side.It was reported that the detached portion was endoscopically retrieved.The procedure was completed with a new endovive standard peg kit push method.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that an endovive standard peg kit push method was used during a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (peg) placement procedure performed on (b)(6) 2022.During the procedure, the peg tube broke at the transition zone as it was being inserted through the patient's mouth up to the stoma site.The peg tube had not gone through the stoma and was stuck in the gastric side.It was reported that the detached portion was endoscopically retrieved.The procedure was completed with a new endovive standard peg kit push method =.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Block h6 (device codes): device code a0501 captures the reportable event of peg tube detached.Block h10: product analysis found the peg tube separated from the dilator at the barbed connector joint, and the peg tubing was not returned.The reported complaint was confirmed.Based on the condition of the returned device, engineers determined that the problem observed is likely that operational factors, such as user technique/handling, patient anatomy, and the size of the incision site that the tube was being pulled through, contributed to the reported complaint.Boston scientific has determined the most probable cause of this complaint is adverse event related to procedure.It is most likely that the adverse event occurred during the procedure and the device had no influence on the event which led to the reported event.A review of the manufacturing documentation for this device revealed that no anomalies or deviations related to the event occurred during manufacturing.A labeling review was performed and, from the information available, this device was used per the instructions for use (ifu) / product label.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|