|
Coloplast has not been provided any corroborating evidence to verify the information contained in this report.The lot number was reviewed for complaint trend, nonconforming report and capa.¿ devices met specification prior to release and no trends were noted.Without the benefit of examination and testing, coloplast is precluded from commenting on the condition of the device or the cause of the occurrence.Should additional facts prompt us to alter or supplement any information or conclusions contained in the original mdr or in any prior supplemental reports, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
|
As reported to coloplast, though not verified, legal representative stated the patient with this device experienced lower left quadrant pain, pain worse with movement and cycle, frequent urinary tract infections, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, urinary frequency, pelvic pressure, a cystoscopy noted a 5 mm erosion encrusted with stone at 7 o¿clock at the distal third end of the urethra.Patient had partial explantation of the device.Intraoperative findings noted a suburethral portion of the midurethral device was removed with urethral erosion identified and included in the removal.Multilayer closure of urethrotomy, with multiple tests of the urethroplasty revealing a watertight closure.Pathology noted a section of mesh material measuring 3x2 x 1.1 x 0.4 cm with attached soft tissue showing squamous mucosa with erosion or ulcer, underlying marked acute and chronic inflammation, foreign material, hemorrhage and vascular proliferation.Gross examination only for mesh material.
|