Model Number 72404232-10 |
Device Problems
Collapse (1099); Inflation Problem (1310); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
Patient Problem
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
Event Date 02/23/2024 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The device is not available for analysis; therefore, no physical or visual analysis of the product could be performed.The reported device performance allegation cannot be confirmed.Based on the information available, the cause that contributed to the reported event cannot be established; a conclusion code of cause not established was assigned to this investigation.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that this inflatable penile prosthesis was unable to be inflated.The pump would stay dimpled after every squeeze.The device was explanted and replaced.No patient complications were reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The device is not available for analysis; therefore, no physical or visual analysis of the product could be performed.The reported device performance allegation cannot be confirmed.Based on the information available, the cause that contributed to the reported event cannot be established; a conclusion code of cause not established was assigned to this investigation.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that this inflatable penile prosthesis was unable to be inflated.The pump would stay dimpled after every squeeze.The device was explanted and replaced.No patient complications were reported.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported that this inflatable penile prosthesis was unable to be inflated.The pump would stay dimpled after every squeeze.The device was explanted and replaced.No patient complications were reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Upon receipt at our quality assurance laboratory, the returned components underwent a thorough analysis.Microscopic examination of the pump identified body fluid contamination.The pump passed leak testing but, due to the contamination, was not functionally tested.Microscopic examination of the first cylinder identified buckling folds in the proximal end, consistent with input tube wear.A hole, consistent with sharp instrument damage, was also identified.The cylinder did not pass leak testing.The second cylinder had buckling folds in the proximal end.It also had tool marks and a hole in the proximal end, consistent with sharp explant damage.The cylinder did not pass leak testing.The cylinder issues identified via analysis could have caused or contributed to the reported clinical observations.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|