It was reported by the physician's assistant that the patient was referred for prophylactic generator replacement due to painful stimulation the patient was experiencing.System diagnostics were unable to be performed due to the pain the patient would experience while running the diagnostics, so x-rays were taken.The x-rays were reviewed by company representative and based on the images the cause for the patient's painful stimulation could not be determined.There did not appear to be any gross fractures or discontinuities.However, the portion of the lead not visualized that would be in the chest could not be assessed; therefore, a lead fracture in that portion of the lead couldn't be ruled out.The presence of a micro-fracture could also not be ruled out.On the date of surgery, after the patient was put under, system diagnostics were run on two occasions with the patient's neck turned in different direction.The diagnostics showed the device was functioning as intended and no high impedance was detected.The surgeon decided to only replace the generator since there was no evidence that the leads had any issues.Surgery was completed on (b)(6) 2016.No additional relevant information has been received to date.
|
Product analysis (pa) for the returned generator was completed.During analysis if was confirmed that the septum of the generator was not cored, thus eliminating the possibility of a potential unintended electrical current path through body fluids.In the lab, the device output signal was monitored for more than 24 hours, while the generator was placed in a simulated body temperature environment.Results showed no signs of variation in the generator's output signal and demonstrated the device provided the expected level of output current for the entire monitoring period.The generator diagnostics were as expected for the programmed parameters.The generator performed according to functional specifications.There were no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the generator.
|