|
It was reported that on (b)(6) 2025, a patient received an acessa procedure, the procedure was reported as uneventful and the surgeon noticed a mark on the bladder.At the time of the procedure, it was reported that a urology team consisting of surgeon, urologist and surgeon proctor were present during the procedure and agreed that it was not likely caused by the acessa procedure.On (b)(6) 2025, it was reported that the patient had reported increased urinary frequency and that no follow up treatment was required.On april 17th, 2026, new information was received on the case.The treating physician reported that she ¨now believes that the mark observed had been a thermal spread and that during a cystoscopy it was observed spread through the bladder¨.Patient received a foley catheter for 1 week and was placed on antibiotics.Patient required multiple visits for urination and pain and then had to go back to the urologist months after for pain during urination.No other information could be obtained.
|
|
Lot number of the device not provided by the complainant; therefore, the udi, expiration and manufacturing dates are not known.Device history record (dhr) review was unable to be conducted for the device as the identification numbers were not provided by the complainant.The device involved in this event was not returned for evaluation purposes therefore visual and functional analysis of the product could not be performed.We are unable to confirm a relationship between the device and the issue reported.The information obtained during complaint investigation will be included in our global complaint trending and product surveillance will continue to monitor complaints of this type for adverse trends.If the product is received or additional information is obtained, the investigation will be reopened accordingly per standard operating procedure.
|