|
Additional information received from the cs (clinical specialist) stated, there were no device issues involving implantation, no procedural complications due to imaging, and the slda may have been due to only one device being deployed instead of two implants for stabilization of a large prolapse.
|
|
The following sections were updated/corrected/added: b4, b5, d4, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, and h11.H6 investigation conclusions: adverse event related to patient anatomy and/or condition.The reported event: implant dislodged from a single leaflet, single leaflet device attachment (slda) post procedure was confirmed based on the information provided.Available information suggests patient and procedural factors likely contributed to the event.As per the information received, slda may have occurred due to the implantation of only one device instead of two implants, which may have resulted in insufficient stabilization of a large prolapse and inadequate leaflet capture.Therefore, the most likely cause of this event is due to operational context.The device history record review was completed, and this device passed all manufacturing and sterilization inspections.No nonconformances related to the complaint event were identified.Since no edwards defect was identified, corrective or preventative actions are not required.
|