| Model Number |
72404011 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Mechanical Problem (1384); Nonstandard Device (1420); Material Puncture/Hole (1504)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/30/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Concomitant product udi for reservoir is (b)(4), concomitant product udi for pump is (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) went to the hospital two weeks before the operation because the product did not work properly.As a result of the inspection, it was confirmed that the left cylinder had a hole, so both cylinders were replaced.The cause of the cylinder hole was not detailed by the hospital.There were no patient complications reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Concomitant product udi for reservoir is (b)(4).Concomitant product udi for pump is (b)(4).Upon receipt at our quality assurance laboratory, this inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) underwent a thorough analysis.The first cylinder was microscopically inspected and leak tested.Microscope examination revealed that the first cylinder had a hole in the proximal end of the cylinder consistent with sharp instrument damage.The first cylinder also had wear at a fold in the proximal end and distal end of the cylinder.The leakage test revealed that the first cylinder had a leak in the proximal end of the cylinder.The second cylinder was microscopically inspected and leak tested.No damage or abnormalities were found, and the second cylinder passed the leakage test.Based on the available test results and investigation, the allegation of mechanical issue and hole/perforation could not be confirmed.The sharp instrument damage identified on the first cylinder is consistent with a secondary event that occurred during the explant procedure and does not support the reported complaint.The device history record (dhr) review confirmed that the device met all material, assembly, and performance specifications.A review of the device instructions for use (ifu) was completed and did not reveal any evidence of device misuse, off label use, or failure to follow instructions.Based on the information available, a conclusion code of cause not established was assigned to this investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) went to the hospital two weeks before the operation because the product did not work properly.As a result of the inspection, it was confirmed that the left cylinder had a hole, so both cylinders were replaced according to the doctors diagnosis.The cause of the cylinder hole was not detailed by the hospital.There were no patient complications reported.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) went to the hospital two weeks before the operation because the product did not work properly.As a result of the inspection, it was confirmed that the left cylinder had a hole, so both cylinders were replaced according to the doctors diagnosis.The cause of the cylinder hole was not detailed by the hospital.There were no patient complications reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Concomitant product udi for reservoir is (b)(4).Concomitant product udi for pump is (b)(4).Upon receipt at our quality assurance laboratory, this inflatable penile prosthesis (ipp) underwent a thorough analysis.The first cylinder was microscopically inspected and leak tested.Microscope examination revealed that the first cylinder had a hole in the proximal end of the cylinder consistent with sharp instrument damage.The first cylinder also had wear at a fold in the proximal end and distal end of the cylinder.The leakage test revealed that the first cylinder had a leak in the proximal end of the cylinder.The second cylinder was microscopically inspected and leak tested.No damage or abnormalities were found, and the second cylinder passed the leakage test.Based on the available test results and investigation, the allegation of mechanical issue and hole/perforation could not be confirmed.The sharp instrument damage identified on the first cylinder is consistent with a secondary event that occurred during the explant procedure and does not support the reported complaint.The device history record (dhr) review confirmed that the device met all material, assembly, and performance specifications.A review of the device instructions for use (ifu) was completed and did not reveal any evidence of device misuse, off label use, or failure to follow instructions.Based on the information available, a conclusion code of cause not established was assigned to this investigation.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|