|
|
| Catalog Number |
SDC135H |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Rupture (1546)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Deformity/ Disfigurement (2360); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a 500cc mentor artoura plus, smooth, high profile tissue expander deflated intra-operatively, during a breast reconstruction.There was no patient contact, consequence or adverse event reported.
|
| |
|
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: material rupture.Mentor is submitting this report pursuant to the provisions of 21 cfr, part 803.This report may be based on information which mentor has not been able to investigate or verify prior to the required reporting date.This report does not reflect a conclusion by fda, mentor, or its employees that the report constitutes an admission that the device, mentor, or its employees caused or contributed to the potential event described in this report.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On november 5, 2024, the mentor failure analysis lab 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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On january 29, 2025, the product investigation was completed.Device investigation summary: the product was returned to mentor for evaluation.Mentor then conducted a visual inspection and microscopic examination of the tissue expander.Visual analysis of the returned sample revealed that the artoura plus sm te hp 500cc tissue expander was found to have a tear on the anterior aspect at the junction between the bladder and shell at the four o'clock position.Microscopic examination was performed and the cause of the tear could not be identified.Mentor also performed a manufacturing record evaluation related to the reported complaint for the finished device lot number.No manufacturing non-conformances were identified as part of this evaluation.Based on the information currently available, a notification was sent to mentor's manufacturing team for further investigation.In conclusion, the collected process controls and data records for the tissue expander meet specifications.The tear mentioned cannot be confirmed as a manufacturing defect.Although no conclusion could be reached on the cause of the reported event, the instructions for use contain the following caution: the silicone shell of the tissue expander may easily be cut by a scalpel or ruptured by excessive stress, manipulation with blunt instruments, or penetration by a needle.Subsequent deflation and/or rupture could result.All devices should be carefully inspected for structural integrity prior to and during implantation.As part of mentor's quality process, all devices are manufactured, inspected, and released according to approved specifications.Based on the results of this investigation, it was determined that the product met the manufacturing release criteria: no corrective and preventive action (capa) is required now.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On february 6, 2025, mentor became aware that the following information was erronously omitted from the initial report: the deflation was actually discovered post-operatively.The patient underwent radiation and the implant was deflated intentionally for better radiation beam access.After the radiation, the expander was re-inflated, however, a few days later, the patient noticed deflation.Attempts to re-inflated failed and the expander deflated immediately.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|