|
|
| Model Number |
TEXP110RH |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Rupture (1546)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Code Available (3191)
|
| Date of Event |
08/12/2020
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Since the device has not been returned for analysis, no product failure analysis can be conducted, and no determination of possible contributing factors can be made.As such, the investigation will be closed.If the complaint device is received in the future, the investigation will be reopened and conducted as appropriate.A manufacturing record evaluation (mre) was performed, and no anomalies were found related to this complaint.In addition, the mre verifies that the device was manufactured in accordance with documented specification and procedures.Reason for device explant and/or reoperation: unknown.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a female patient underwent a breast surgery with a 300cc artoura breast tissue expander and experienced postoperative right-sided deflation.The patient underwent a revision surgery on (b)(6) 2020.Upon explantation, the deflation was observed.As this time of report, the reason for the revision surgery is unknown.Multiple follow-ups were made to obtain additional information.However, no response has been received.If additional information becomes available in the future, a supplemental report will be submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On 11-sep-2020, the mentor failure analysis lab has received the device for evaluation.The analysis has begun but is not complete at this time.When the investigational analysis has been completed, a supplemental report will be submitted.Mentor received additional information regarding the patient's demographics.The patient initials are (b)(6), the patient's dob is (b)(6) 1989, and the patient's age at the time of event is 31.The relevant fields have been updated.Manufacturer's reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On (b)(6) 2020, the investigation on the suspected medical device was completed.Investigation summary: during visual evaluation of the device, no apparent damage or visual anomalies were observed on the returned device.Leak testing was performed, and it revealed a tear at the juncture of the shell and injection dome.Microscopic examination was performed, and the cause of the rupture could not be identified.Each device is visually inspected during manufacturing to ensure the device meets the required specifications prior to shipment.Manufacturer's reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On (b)(6), 2022, the device evaluation was updated.Device evaluation summary: the product was returned to mentor for evaluation.Mentor then conducted a visual inspection, leak testing, and microscopic examination of the returned device.During the visual evaluation, no apparent damage or visual anomalies were observed on the returned device.Leak testing was performed and it revealed a tear at the juncture of the shell and injection dome.A microscopic re-examination was performed, and the cause of the rupture is reasonable to suspect instrument damage.Based on the information currently available, microscopic examination of the returned product indicates that the implant could have been damaged during or subsequent to implantation.The product insert data sheet cautions to not allow cautery devices or sharp instruments, such as scalpels, suture needles, hypodermic needles, hemostats, adson forceps, or scissors to contact the device during the implantation or other surgical procedures.As part of mentor¿s quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released to approved specifications.Manufacturer's reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|