|
|
| Catalog Number |
1161935 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hernia (2240)
|
| Date of Event |
09/22/2015
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
As reported, post implant of the xenmatrix, the patient was diagnosed with hernia recurrence and underwent reoperation for mesh removal.The clinician has assessed the patient¿s postoperative course as "possibly" related related to the study device and not related to the procedure.However, based on the information provided, no conclusion can be made.Hernia recurrence is known inherent risk of surgery.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence as a possible complication.Review of manufacturing records confirms product was manufactured to specification.This mdr represent the ae of hernia recurrence.An additional mdr was submitted to represent the event of fistula.Not returned - mesh explanted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Alleged per clinical trial (b)(4): on (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent multiple recurrent ventral suprapubic open hernia repair procedure during which a xenmatrix surgical graft was trimmed and placed in underlay fashion inter peritoneally, fixated using sutures.Fascia was completely closed using suture through interrupted stitch.Full skin closure was achieved using sutures.Concomitant procedure includes lysis of adhesion(s).The patient was discharged to home on (b)(6) 2014.On (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent removal of jackson pratt drain and discharged on the same day.On (b)(6) 2014, the patient was diagnosed with fistula; the spontaneous draining sinus resolved over time on (b)(6) 2015, patient underwent physical exam during which ventral suprapubic hernia (3.7 cm2) was diagnosed and confirmed through ct scan on (b)(6) 2015.On (b)(6) 2015 patient underwent an additional surgery and the device was explanted.The fascia was completely closed using suture through interrupted stitch and the skin was fully closed.The patient was discharged on (b)(6) 2015.The ae is clinically assessed to be of moderate severity, possibly related to the study device and not related to the procedure and recovered/resolved.The reported adverse event meets the definition of an sae (serious adverse event).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|