|
Device Problem
Insufficient Information (3190)
|
Patient Problem
Incontinence (1928)
|
Event Date 04/14/2011 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Isi has attempted to contact the surgeon to obtain additional information regarding the reported event.However, as of the date of this report, no new information has been obtained.There is no allegation that a malfunction of a da vinci system, instrument, or accessory occurred.At this time, the specific da vinci surgical system used during the radical prostatectomy procedure is unknown.If additional information is received, a follow-up mdr will be submitted.This complaint is being reported due to the following conclusion: after undergoing a da vinci-assisted radical prostatectomy procedure, the patient claimed that he has been ¿completely incontinent.¿ however, at this time, the root cause of the post-operative complication is unknown.There is no allegation that a malfunction of a da vinci surgical system occurred.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that after undergoing a da vinci-assisted prostatectomy procedure on (b)(6) 2011, the patient claimed that he has been "completely incontinent." according to the patient, the surgeon¿s operative report noted no complications.Per the patient, a nursing note indicated he had ¿extraordinarily strong pain in the abdominal cavity after the operation.¿ the patient was discharged on (b)(6) 2011, with a ¿lying bladder catheter.¿ the catheter was removed on an unspecified date at a rehabilitation clinic and ¿clear urinary incontinence was observed.¿ four weeks post-operatively, the patient claimed that ¿20-25 urinary catheters were needed per day.¿ six months post-operatively, the patient indicated that 15 catheters were needed.On (b)(6) 2012, the patient reportedly underwent ¿urodynamic testing¿ by a physician at another hospital.The patient indicated that the physician noted the following in his medical report: ¿there¿s complete incontinence after radical prostatectomy with davinci.¿ in relation to a low filling capacity of the bladder, the patient questioned as to whether "serious errors were made in the reconstruction of the bladder neck.".
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|