5 ms·
Your situation is tragic and I'm saddened by the loss, but fatal infection is orthogonal to the subject of the article. MRSA infection is a procedural error not
by ebg13 6y ago
Your situation is tragic and I'm saddened by the loss, but fatal infection is orthogonal to the subject of the article. MRSA infection is a procedural error not caused by the implant itself.
- kube-system 6y agoThe article discusses infection risk. Infection risk is an inherent part of the total risk associated with any medical procedure. It is not separable -- you cannot use an implant if it is not implanted.
- Balanceinfinity 6y agoSadly, horribly, that is now a risk with every major procedure - but at least it's a known risk that the patient can choose to accept when the underlying condition is not life threatening. Devices that don't work properly and haven't been properly reviewed by the FDA are risks the patient can't reasonably evaluate.
- kube-system 6y ago> Sadly, horribly, that is now a risk with every major procedure Infection always has and likely always will be a risk when you open up a human. Evaluating, understanding, and measuring those risks is the only way we can begin to mitigate them. On the bright side, recent medical technology has also brought us a lot of minimally or non-invasive procedures. Those generally have much lower (sometimes almost zero) risks of infection.
- unsrsly 6y agoMRSA is known to "hide" from the immune system on indwelling hardware. Often, part of the treatment for MRSA infection is to explant the hardware (source control). So even though MRSA infection is not a "device failure," having a device in place is a major factor in whether the body can clear the infection. Also, it's probably rare, but an implant can directly cause an infection if there's a flaw in the sterilization process the manufacturer uses.