|
According to the initial reporter: during the original implant on (b)(6) 2025, an endoleak was observed, but its cause had not been confirmed at the time.A follow-up ct scan on (b)(6) 2025, showed that the aneurysm had grown by 0.5 cm.Another ct scan on (b)(6) 2025, revealed an additional 1.0 cm of growth.On (b)(6) 2025, the patient underwent an angiogram and bilateral limb component ballooning, but the procedure did not resolve the aneurysm, and no further interventions were performed at that time.A subsequent ct scan on (b)(6) 2026, showed an additional 0.5 cm of growth.On (b)(6) 2026, the patient had an intervention in which a gore excluder was implanted to resolve the issue.During the implant procedure, the device ifu was followed, and the device functioned as expected while following the ifu.The endoleak was discovered on the final angiogram during the deployment procedure.There were no adverse events, but the patient was at risk for pending rupture.The patient outcome was a successful re-intervention.No part of the procedure was performed off-label or outside the patient selection criteria.There were no difficulties experienced during deployment.The patient¿s anatomy was a little tortuous, but not problematic.The physician believes a fabric tear at the crotch of the graft caused the issue.The shape of the neck anatomy was angulated and reverse funnel.The graft was ballooned at all seal zones and overlap sites, and extra ballooning was performed as a pre- or post-implantation adjunctive procedure.The graft was able to be deployed in the target zone.
|