|
MENTOR TEXAS MENTOR MEMORYGEL XTRA BREAST IMPLANT; PROSTHESIS, BREAST, NONINFLATABLE, INTERNAL, SILICONE GEL-FILLED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
SHPX260 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Rupture (1546)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Capsular Contracture (1761)
|
| Date of Event |
03/01/2025
|
|
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.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.Reason for device explant and/or reoperation: capsular contracture, suspected rupture.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent a breast augmentation revision surgery with implantation of a 260cc mentor memorygel xtra breast implant prosthesis.Post-operatively, the patient was diagnosed with right breast baker grade iv capsular contracture during a physical exam and a possibly ruptured right breast implant using magnetic resonance imaging.As a result, the patient underwent unilateral right-sided removal and replacement with a mentor gel implant on (b)(6) 2025.The explanted device was inspected and described as not ruptured; however, they were not entirely sure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On august 11, 2025, the mentor analysis lab received the suspect medical device for evaluation.On august 14, 2025, mentor completed an evaluation on the returned device.Device evaluation: mentor then conducted visual inspection, leak testing, and microscopic examination of the device.Visual analysis of the returned device revealed that some bubbles were observed.Leak testing was performed, in accordance with mentor procedures, and five tears (a, b, c, d and e) were observed on the anterior view, tear a measuring approximately 0.1 cm and the tears b, c, d and e measuring less than 0.1 cm.In addition, te bubbles observed could be caused by the tears found.Microscopic examination was performed on the edges of the tears, and parallel striations were found in the whole area of the tears.Parallel striations are consistent with markings made by a sharp object perforating the implant shell.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.Regarding the reported capsular contracture condition, there are not enough details to determine the factors that may have caused this condition.Capsular contracture in the patient¿s breast might be the result of the body¿s individual physiological response to the implantation of a foreign object in soft tissue.Further, capsular contracture is a known complication associated with these devices and is referenced in our current product insert data sheet.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|