|
As stated in the literature, ¿a number of risk factors for rupture have been identified; the most common cause is surgical instrument damage.¿ (handel et al., 2013).Early seroma formation is defined as periprosthetic fluid accumulation within the first postoperative year, whereas the late form is any moment beyond that time (sforza, et al.2017).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.Per our directions for use, each patient must receive the establishment labs s.A.¿motiva implants®: information for the patient¿ during her surgical consultation, it is the surgeons´ responsibility to ensure that the patient completely understands the information regarding the risks, benefits, and recommendations associated with silicone gel-filled breast implant surgery, as well as the complications typical of any type of surgery.This document is available in motiva® website: ifu.Motiva.Health.The instructions for use in the directions for use were reviewed, to determinate 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 for the section of surgical precautions as follows: rupture: ¿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¿.Seroma: "seroma is an accumulation of fluid that results from tissue inflammation.The etiology of seroma is known in breast surgery and is connected to a hypovascular milieu or trauma following the surgery.Often, seromas are reabsorbed by the body over several weeks, but needle drainage is sometimes needed to remove the fluid.While seromas do not increase breast cancer risk, they sometimes heal with scar tissue or calcifications that can raise a concern about mammograms in the future.Seroma symptoms most often appear a week to 10 days after surgery; the area may feel tender and swollen, with a discrete lump and redness arising within a day or two.Early seroma formation is defined as periprosthetic fluid accumulation within the first postoperative year, whereas the late form is any moment beyond that time.In addition to causing pain, a seroma increases the risk of developing an infection in the breast.Depending on the location, it may also increase pressure over the surgical site and sometimes cause wound dehiscence".Establishment labs requests the unit to confirm the rupture and to perform the corresponding testing (including but not limited to: revision and characterization under the microscope of the rupture section, mechanical testing according to approved standards, etc.).For this specific case, there devices will be returned for analysis.Breast implants are not considered lifetime devices, and implant rupture is a risk associated with breast surgery, which can occur at any time.
|
|
Upon thorough evaluation of the submitted clinical documentation and supporting evidence, the reported seroma was not confirmed.Laboratory evaluation was conducted in accordance with internal procedures.Key findings include: ¿ visual inspection: macroscopic examination of the returned device revealed clear evidence of shell rupture.¿ microscopic analysis: under magnification, the shell exhibited trace marks indicative of interaction with a sharp instrument.The morphology of these marks closely matched those reproduced under controlled laboratory conditions simulating instrument-related damage.These findings differ significantly from patterns associated with spontaneous rupture (e.G., fatigue or shell degradation).¿ shell compliance testing: mechanical and material integrity testing confirmed that the implant shell met all applicable international specification standards.Based on the testing results, the most probable root cause of the iatrogenic rupture is a damage from a sharp surgical instrument.Such damage may have compromised the shell¿s integrity, predisposing it to failure during clinical procedure.The event has been evaluated as part of ongoing trend analysis activities within the pms program.Per the current complaint data report: ¿ no adverse or unexpected trends related to the alleged event have been identified.¿ no further corrective or preventive actions are required at this time.Establishment labs will continue to monitor for similar events as part of routine pms surveillance.
|