|
MENTOR TEXAS MENTOR MEMORYGEL BREAST IMPLANT; PROSTHESIS, BREAST, NONINFLATABLE, INTERNAL, SILICONE GEL-FILLED
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
3544275 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Rupture (1546)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Deformity/ Disfigurement (2360)
|
| Date of Event |
10/16/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient underwent breast augmentation revision with a 275cc mentor memorygel breast implant on the left breast.Post-operatively, the patient was diagnosed, via ultrasound, with left breast implant rupture.As a result, the patient underwent breast implant removal and replacement surgery on (b)(6) 2025.The replacement device was a mentor gel implant.
|
| |
|
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 is in progress.Once completed, a supplemental report will be submitted.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.If certain information is unknown, not available or does not apply, the section/field of the form is left blank.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On december 8, 2025, an analysis of the suspect medical device¿s photo was completed.Investigation summary: upon visual evaluation of the image provided in the complaint no apparent damage or visual anomalies were observed.As the product involved in this complaint was not received, the device could not be analyzed according to our procedures.Mentor also performed a manufacturing record evaluation related to the reported complaint for the finished device lot number.No manufacturing non-conformance's were identified as part of this evaluation.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: since no malfunction was observed during the investigation.No corrective and preventive action (capa) is required now.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
On january 16, 2026, the mentor failure analysis lab received the device for evaluation.The patient identifier was also provided and has been populated.On january 22, 2026, the product investigation was completed.Device investigation summary: the product was returned to mentor for evaluation.Mentor conducted a visual inspection and microscopic examination of the returned device.Visual analysis of the returned device revealed that the breast implant was found to have an area of siltex cracking on the anterior view.In addition, a tear was noted within the siltex cracking measuring approximately 1.6 cm.A microscopic examination was performed and instrument damage was not found on the area of the tear.The evaluation determined that the possible cause of the rupture is consistent with normal wear.Siltex cracking is defined as a material separation occurring in the siltex layer and can eventually progress through the shell of siltex devices.Siltex cracking is ultimately a result of high stresses.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, and that normal wear may have caused the observed defect.No corrective and preventive action (capa) is required now.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|