| Model Number |
LS-[13] |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Erosion (1750); Dysphagia/ Odynophagia (1815); No Code Available (3191)
|
| Date of Event |
03/04/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Date sent: 03/30/2020 the lot was not provided; therefore, the manufacturing record evaluation could not be performed.Attempts are being made to obtain the following information.To date no response has been provided.If further details are received at a later date a supplemental medwatch will be sent.Prior to linx placement, did the patient have an egd, ph, and manometry studies done? if yes, could you please share the results? what is the lot number of the linx device? when using the linx sizing device what technique was used to determine the size? did the patient have an autoimmune disease? is the patient currently taking steroids / immunization drugs? did the patient have any pre-existing dysphagia or other conditions (other than gerd)? how severe was the dysphagia/odynophagia before intervention? were there any intra-operative complications during implant? was there any hiatal or crural repair done at the same time as the implant? was the device found in the correct position/geometry at the time of removal? what were the first clinical symptoms that provided evidence of an erosion and when did they first occur? has the patient had any dilations, egd, or other procedure between the linx implant and discovery of the erosion? please describe and include the dates of the procedures.Are pictures or videos available? how many beads eroded? where were the eroded beads positioned? was the patient stented? what is current patient status?.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient was implanted (b)(6) 2013 with a 13 bead sutured linx device.The patient had complained of dysphagia x 2 months.Upon an upper gi exam on (b)(6) 2020, beads were noted in the esophageal lumen.The entire device was removed via an endoscopic procedure without complication.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).Date sent: 04/15/2020.Device analysis: overall review of the device function and dimensions show no anomalies from a device that has been reasonably changed as part of the explant procedure.Visual analysis was consistent with an explanted device, and link length and tensile force were found to meet the applicable specifications.Overall, no analysis conclusions relevant to the patient experience were found.The device lot number is unknown; therefore, the device history record could not be reviewed.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|