|
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.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: deflation.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
|
The investigation of the returned device was completed by the failure analysis lab on june 24, 2022.Device evaluation summary: during the visual evaluation of the tissue expander, a tear (a) was found on the anterior view, measuring approximately 4.0 cm.Leak testing was performed in accordance with mentor procedures, and a tear (b) was identified at the 6 o¿clock position.When evaluated under a microscope the tear pattern did not reveal parallel striations that are consistent with markings made by a sharp instrument.Microscopic examination was performed on the edges of the rupture (a), and parallel striations were found in the whole area of the tear.Parallel striations are consistent with markings made by a sharp object perforating the tissue expander shell.Based on the information currently available, microscopic examination of the rupture (a) indicates that the expander could have been damaged during or after 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.Based on the information currently available, a suture tab issue (tear b) was identified during the investigation of the sample received.This product issue was addressed through mentor¿s quality system.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|