|
|
| Model Number |
0500676P3 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Output Problem (3005)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Tinnitus (2103)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The manufacturer initiated an investigation.The initial follow up with the hcp established that the patient is still wearing the device and did not visit the clinic again, therefore the device cannot be sent for an analysis.The hcp fitted the patient with a new earpiece and wanted to carry out the feedback test, which is a part of a standard procedure, but the sound was so loud that the patient thought his tinnitus become significantly worse.The feedback test was aborted and the hcp did not go through it completely.According to the hcp's records, the patient did not see an ent specialist afterwards.However, it says that the patient visited a neurologist due to sleep disorder.The hcp does not have any measurements of patient's tinnitus after the incident as the patient did not want to come back to the hcp.The customer has described to the hcp the level of his tinnitus as severe and life-limiting (sleep disturbances, withdrawal from everyday life, he apparently no longer participates at all, repeated palpitations, depression, pain in the ears).The hcp confirmed that they did not observe any apparent malfunction.The investigation is ongoing and findings are pending.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The hcp reports that the end user has received a pop trauma due to a feedback measurement after delivery of a new earpiece, which has significantly increased his already preexisting tinnitus and he can no longer participate in normal life.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The manufacturer was not able to receive the hearing instrument for the analysis and obtain more information about the patient's outcome as the patient does not want come back to the clinic.In the consecutive follow up, the hcp confirmed that the fitting proceeded as normal without any abnormalities.The new earpieces were made by a different laboratory (not sonova ag).The name of the earpiece manufacturer was not confirmed.The manufacturer checked the patient's fitting files obtained from the hcp.There was no particular abnormalities detected in the fitting files.Based on the files, the mpo was increased above 132 db, which is set by the hcp depending on the patient's needs and hearing loss level.As this mpo is considered high, the fitting software gives a warning that needs to be acknowledge in order to proceed with the fitting.The loudness of the feedback test depends on the mpo fitting of the hearing instrument.There is no service history for patient's hearing instrument, which confirms that the device was not serviced before.The manufacturer reviewed the technical documentation.The feedback test is checked as part of the hearing aid verification.No bugs have been detected.The risk file already contains a risk concerning high sound pressure level being delivered during feedback test.The fitting software integrates risk control measures such as the sound pressure level of the audio test signal is lower than 132 db spl, an information to the hcp prior to the test initiation that the hi will produce a test signal that can be cancelled at any time and the fitting software provides a user interface to immediately mute the audio test signal.The ifu specifies that the fitting software is intended to be used by qualified hearing care professionals and contains important safety information concerning loud sounds.The review of similar incidents confirmed that the manufacturer has not recorded any similar cases in the last 3 years globally for any of sonova ag hearing instruments and software.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|