INTERSTIM
Report
- Report Number
- 3004209178-2013-10666
- Event Type
- Malfunction
- Date Received
- June 20, 2013
- Report Date
- May 29, 2013
- Manufacturer
- MEDTRONIC MED REL MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO
- Product Code
- EZW
- PMA / PMN Number
- P970004
- Product Problem
- Yes
- Report Source
- Manufacturer report
- Reporter Location
- AS
- Reporter Occupation
- PHYSICIAN
Narratives
CONCOMITANT PRODUCTS: PRODUCT ID: 748910, SERIAL# (B)(4), IMPLANTED: (B)(6) 2007, EXPLANTED: (B)(6) 2013, PRODUCT TYPE: EXTENSION. PRODUCT ID: 3093-28, SERIAL# (B)(4), IMPLANTED: (B)(6) 2007, PRODUCT TYPE: LEAD. PRODUCT ID: NEU_STIMBOOT_ACC, PRODUCT TYPE: ACCESSORY. PRODUCT ID: 748910, SERIAL# (B)(4), IMPLANTED: (B)(6) 2007, EXPLANTED: (B)(6) 2013, PRODUCT TYPE: EXTENSION. (B)(4).
(B)(4).
ANALYSIS OF THE NEUROSTIMULATOR, SERIAL #(B)(4), FOUND THE BATTERY WAS NOT IN NEW CONDITION WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ANOMALIES. ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENSION, SERIAL #(B)(4), FOUND NO ANOMALY. ANALYSIS OF THE BOOT FOUND IT CUT WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ANOMALIES.
IF INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN THE FUTURE, A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WILL BE ISSUED.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING A ROUTINE IMPLANTABLE NEUROSTIMULATOR (INS) REPLACEMENT, THE SURGEON WANTED TO CHANGE THE EXTENSION AS IT WAS ¿TWISTED AROUND THE LEAD¿. WHEN THE LEAD WAS REMOVED FROM THE EXTENSION BARREL, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE OUTER INSULATION OF THE LEAD HAD ¿BROKEN¿ VERY ¿CLEANLY¿ WHERE THE ELECTRODE 0 (THE CONTACT CLOSEST TO THE TINES AT THE NON-STIMULATION END OF THE LEAD) JOINED THE OUTER LEAD INSULATION. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THIS COULDN¿T HAVE BEEN DUE TO FLEXION OF THE LEAD, AS THE POINT OF SEPARATION WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE BARREL OF THE EXTENSION. ADDITIONALLY, THE ¿BREAK¿ WAS NOT UNDER THE SUTURE POINT OF THE BOOT. THE SURGEON DETERMINED THAT THE BREAK MUST HAVE BEEN DUE TO DISTRACTION FORCES AND WONDERED IF IT WAS JUST A ¿FAULT¿ WITH THE LEAD AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY IMPLANTED IN 2007 AND THAT WAS THE PATIENT¿S SECOND BATTERY REPLACEMENT. THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OF ANY ADVERSE STIMULATION. ALTHOUGH THE PATIENT FELT THE STIMULATION WAS A ¿BIT WEAKER¿ ¿POSSIBLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE BATTERY HAD LESS THAN 20% POWER REMAINING, THE PATIENT WAS STILL RECEIVING BENEFIT FROM THE THERAPY. AN IMPEDANCE TEST WAS NOT DONE PRIOR TO THE PROCEDURE AS IT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE INDICATED. THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE SURGEON HAD NOT CONSENTED THE PATIENT TO A LEAD REMOVAL SO THE LEAD WAS NOT REMOVED BUT NOTED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE IN THE ¿NEXT FEW WEEKS¿. THE INS AND EXTENSION WERE HOWEVER REPLACED. THERE WAS NO PATIENT INJURY AND THE PATIENT RECOVERED WITHOUT SEQUELA. APPROXIMATELY A WEEK LATER, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SURGEON DID NOT USE THE SUTURE HOLES. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WERE NO X-RAYS OR IMAGES TAKEN AS IT WAS TO BE A STRAIGHT INS REPLACEMENT AND THE TWISTING WAS NOT SEEN BY THE REPORTER. THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE INS WAS SITED IN THE PATIENT¿S BUTTOCK AND DID NOT THINK THAT IT WAS A TWIDDLER¿S SYNDROME INCIDENT. THE REPORTER DID NOT HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS OCCURRED. IT WAS LATER REPORTED THAT THE PATIENT¿S NEW INS, EXTENSION AND ¿OLD¿ LEAD WERE SWITCHED ON 1-,2+, 1.1V, 210MCS, 14HZ. THE PATIENT WAS COMFORTABLE ON THESE SETTINGS AND COULD FEEL STIMULATION. NO IMPEDANCE TEST WAS COMPLETED. THE REPORTER INDICATED THAT THE SURGEON STILL INTENDED TO REPLACE THE LEAD ¿SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, PERHAPS IN ABOUT 6 MONTHS¿. IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE, A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED.
Devices
| Seq | Brand | Generic | Product Code | Manufacturer | Model | Lot | UDI-DI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 281500 | INTERSTIM | STIMULATOR, ELECTRICAL, IMPLANTABLE, FOR INCONTINENCE | EZW | MEDTRONIC MED REL MEDTRONIC PUERTO RICO | 3023 |
Patients
| Seq | Age | Sex | Outcome | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |