Description of Event or Problem · 1
A (B)(6) MALE WHO PRESENTS TODAY FOR A FOLLOW UP VISIT. HE IS 8 MONTHS OUT FROM A TENEX 2 PROCEDURE ON HIS RIGHT PROXIMAL HAMSTRING ON (B)(6) 2016. HE STATES THE SYMPTOMS ARE BETTER SINCE THE PREVIOUS OFFICE VISIT. THE PATIENT COMPLAINS OF THE FEELING OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS OUTER THIGH. HE HAS RETURNED TO RUNNING, AND HAS NO COMPLAINTS DURING ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, THE FOREIGN BODY HAS MADE THAT AREA OF HIS THIGH TENDER AND SENSITIVE. USING STERILE TECHNIQUE, THE SKIN WAS PREPPED WITH ALCOHOL SWABS AND 2 ML OF LIDOCAINE WITHOUT EPINEPHRINE WAS INJECTED. SUBSEQUENTLY A 3 MM INCISION WAS MADE AT THE ANTERIOR END THE FOREIGN BODY AND USING BLUNT DISSECTION THE TIP OF THE METAL SHEATH WAS IDENTIFIED. A 5 CM METALLIC SHEATH WAS REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THE INSTRUMENT WAS INSPECTED FOR ANY DEFECTS AND ULTRASOUND WAS PERFORMED AFTER REMOVAL TO EVALUATE FOR ANY RETAINED FOREIGN MATTER. IN REVIEW OF THE RETAINED ITEM, APPEARS IT IS THE NEEDLE OF THE TENEX 2. IT IS ALSO NOTED A PRODUCT BULLETIN WAS ISSUED ON (B)(6) 2017. "USE OF AN OUT-OF-PLANE MOTION (SWEEPING OR SIDE-SIDE) INSTEAD OF THE PRESCRIBED AXIAL MOTION (LONGITUDINAL) HAS RESULTED IN DAMAGE OR SEPARATION OF THE HYPODERMIC NEEDLE AND/OR IRRIGATION SHEATH ATTACHED TO THE MICROTIP." PROVIDER DENIES USE OF A SWEEPING OR SIDE-SIDE MOTION IN THIS CASE WHICH RESULTED IN THE NEEDLE SEPARATION.