|
"a number of risk factors for rupture have been identified; the most common cause is surgical instrument damage.¿ (handel, garcía and winxtrom, 2013.Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management.Plast.Reconstr.Surg.132: 1128.) ¿it is imperative that careful planning and exacting surgical technique are used to reduce iatrogenic damage of implants during primary placement and subsequent reoperations.¿ (handel, garcía and winxtrom, 2013.Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management.Plast.Reconstr.Surg.132: 1128).Breast implants are not considered lifetime devices, and implant rupture is a risk associated with breast surgery, which can occur at any time.Additionally, rupture is a common and known reason for complaints, and it is clearly characterized in the product dfu included with the implant, as stated above.Additionally, no cases of rupture because of product failure have been reported to establishment labs ever.The instructions for use in the directions for use were reviewed to determine if there are indications that ensure the prevention and good handling of the product.For this event, it is considered that the information is suitable on the section of surgical precautions as follows: ¿breast implants can potentially remain intact for decades in the body, but all such devices will fail at some point.Breast implants rupture when the shell develops a tear or hole.Rupture can occur at any time after implantation, but it is most likely to occur; the longer the implant is in place.The following may cause implants to rupture: damage by surgical instruments, implant stress, and weakening during implantation, age and design of the implant, submuscular rather than sub-glandular location, the occurrence of post-operatory hematomas or seromas, folding or wrinkling of the implant shell, excessive force to the chest, trauma, compression during mammographic imaging, and severe capsular contracture¿.Also, a complete review of the dhr's was carried out, no deviation was found in the process, so it is established that there is no evidence of a relationship between the event and the manufacturing process.
|
|
This patient was implanted three years ago.During an implant exchange (mastopexy) surgery performed, both implants were found ruptured.No patient demographics, such as age, weight, or ethnicity, were provided by the reporter, and no adverse outcomes for the patient have been noted.Efforts to gather additional information are ongoing, and the investigation remains in progress.
|
|
The reported device was returned for evaluation.There was a relationship between the reported rupture and the device.The initial visual inspection found a rupture.Microscope inspection showed trace marks in the shell consistent with those of a sharp instrument reproduced in our laboratory, this is distinct from the pattern resulting from a spontaneous tear in the shells of the implant.Elongation tests confirmed the shell complied with the international specification standards.A complete review of the dhr for lot 20111136 was carried out, no deviation was found in the manufacturing process.Review of complaint history for the reported lot number and sterilization run found no other similar complaints reported in the past.In conclusion, it was determined that a probable cause for the rupture reported was a cut resulting from a sharp instrument used which could have weakened the shell.Establishment labs will continue to monitor for similar complaints/trends.
|