|
As described by the reporter that notified augustine temperature management: "during total circumcision, the heating mattress was used, temperature was set at 36 deg c.After the procedure in the recovery room, buttock tenderness bilaterally appeared.The patient was immediately checked by healthcare professional and first-degree burns in the range of 10 x 10 cm and 7 x 5 cm were discovered.The burns then [partly] developed to grade ii b." the burns were treated "at home with the patient attending outpatient follow-ups at on kladno - pediatric surgery department." according to the latest statement, "the burns have healed without permanent consequences - no scars." per augustine's investigation: the procedure was 30 minutes.The temperature setting on the warming mattress was 36 deg c and there was no malfunction.All devices tested per specification.Based on all of the information provided, a thermal injury is not possible.Although the reporter describes this as a burn, this is not a thermal injury.It was reported that "an alcohol-based disinfectant, softasept (catalog number: 19343)" was used.An impermeable "panep pad" was under the patient.Marcaine -- a local anesthetic with epinephrine -- was used as a block.The most likely root cause of the adverse event is that the alcohol prep solution pooled under the buttocks of the patient and was unable to quickly evaporate due to the panep pad.The concentrated alcohol solution sufficiently damaged the skin.In addition, the use of marcaine causes local ischemia that would make the tissue susceptible to ischemic injury.We warn in our ifu p/n (b)(6): "the risk of skin irritation caused by pooling of surgical prep solutions under the patient may increase with warming; ensure that surgical prep solution instructions for use are followed." we also warn in the same ifu: "do not warm ischemic or non-perfused tissue; thermal injury may result".The low temperature setting, the short duration of the procedure, and the location of the injury all point away from a thermal burn.As long as there was sufficient blood flow to the warmed tissue, the only explanation for the injury is a combination between an adverse reaction to pooling chemicals in combination with the adverse effect from the use of marcaine in a pediatric patient.It also corresponds with the location of the injury.The 2 items from the rma (a controller, p/n wc52 s# (b)(6) and a mattress, p/n u102 s# (b)(6)) were investigated by a 3rd party in the cz republic and functioned per spec (note that certain specific investigations, like tut test and ir test could not be performed by the 3rd party).No details about the medical intervention were obtained, but it has already been confirmed that "the burns have healed without permanent consequences - no scars." atm is filing this emdr because any 2nd degree injury of any size on a pediatric patient is considered a serious injury.This patient was 11 years old and weighed 40 kg.See section h11 for additional manufacturer narrative.
|