| Model Number |
LXC13 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Erosion (1750)
|
| Date of Event |
05/18/2017
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Following a laparoscopic anti-reflux procedure a patient experienced dysphagia and epigastric pain symptoms leading to endoscopic visualization of 2 linx device beads within the esophageal lumen and subsequent device removal.The linx device was used as part of the anti-reflux procedure.- anti-reflux procedure including linx device implantation occurred without issue on (b)(6) 2014 by dr.(b)(6) at (b)(6) memorial hospital.- patient had a new onset of dysphagia and epigastric pain in (b)(6) 2017.- endoscopy confirmed 2 linx device beads visible at the patient's posterior side of the esophagus.The linx device was intact.- 6 of 13 linx device beads were endoscopically removed without issue on (b)(6) 2017 by dr.(b)(6) at (b)(6) memorial hospital.Remaining beads are planned to be removed at a later date.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Following a laparoscopic anti-reflux procedure a patient experienced dysphagia and epigastric pain symptoms leading to endoscopic visualization of 2 linx device beads within the esophageal lumen and subsequent partial device removal.The linx device was used as part of the anti-reflux procedure.Anti-reflux procedure including linx device implantation occurred without issue on (b)(6) 2014 by dr.(b)(6) at (b)(6) hospital.Patient had a new onset of dysphagia and epigastric pain in (b)(6) 2017.Endoscopy confirmed 2 linx device beads visible at the patient's posterior side of the esophagus.The linx device was intact.The 6 of 13 linx device beads were endoscopically removed without issue on (b)(6) 2017 by dr.(b)(6) and dr.(b)(6) at (b)(6) hospital.The patient was reported as doing well after the partial device removal.An attempt to remove the remaining device beads (7) was made on (b)(6) 2017 by dr.(b)(6); the device was not able to be easily exposed (due to adhesions) and the case was abandoned.The patient was no longer experiencing the symptoms she had when the partial device was in the lumen.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|