| Model Number |
BEA25-90/I20-30 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Off-Label Use (1494); Material Puncture/Hole (1504)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Abdominal Pain (1685); Aneurysm (1708); Clinical Endoleak (4843)
|
| Date of Event |
12/22/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The patient was initially treated for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (aaa) on (b)(6) 2019 with the implant of an afx2 bifurcated stent graft, two (2) afx vela suprarenal stent grafts and an ovation ix extender.Reportedly the patient underwent a procedure with interventional radiology in (b)(6) 2025 where a direct sac puncture into the sac with a chive needle (non-endologix) and 6 french sheath (non-endologix) through the vena cava to possibly coil embolize collateral vessels.It was later seen on images that the graft was entered during this procedure and there was a puncture into the graft that was not reported.The patient became symptomatic with belly pain and increasing aneurysm size one month later.Apparently, the hole in the graft remained open and this is likely the reason for a possible type iiib endoleak.The physician elected to reline the graft even though they were unable to identify a definitive endoleak on the initial intraoperative angiogram nor the computed tomography angiogram.Reintervention was completed on (b)(6) 2025 with the implant of an afx2 bifurcated stent graft, an afx vela suprarenal and an ovation ix extender.The patient¿s belly pain was completely resolved and was discharged home post-secondary procedure.The afx2 system was evaluated using endologix components.The safety and effectiveness of other stent or stent graft devices used in conjunction with the afx2 system have not been established.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The devices involved in this event will not be returned for evaluation and remain implanted in the patient.Patient medical records and imaging studies have been requested for further evaluation by a clinical specialist.If additional information pertinent to the incident is obtained, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reported adverse event/incident was investigated in alignment with endologix operating procedures and work instructions.Endologix made at least three good faith efforts to retrieve a reported adverse event/incident-related medical records and medical imaging; however, no response was received.An evaluation of the manufacturing record was completed.A review of the part number/lot number combination needed for device identification shows the device to have been properly manufactured and released in accordance with the device master record.The review confirms there were no manufacturing or processing non-conformities identified that would contribute to the reported adverse event/incident.An evaluation of the device could not be completed.The device was not returned to endologix for evaluation because it remains implanted.A clinical evaluation of the adverse event/incident could not be completed.No medical records nor medical imaging relevant to the reported adverse event/incident was received by endologix.The user facility was unable to provide this information.Due to the absence of medical records and medical imaging device, use, procedure, and/or anatomy relatedness to this incident could not be evaluated.The final patient status was reported to be that the patient¿s belly pain was completely resolved and was discharged home post-secondary procedure, however; endologix was unable to confirm this as medical records nor imaging were not provided.No additional investigation of this reported adverse event/incident is planned.However, should additional information relevant to the investigation outcome become available, a follow-up report will be submitted.Endologix will continue to monitor this and similar adverse events.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|