|
On january 9, 2026, device evaluation was completed as follows: mentor conducted a visual inspection, leak test, microscopic examination, and shell thickness of the returned device.Visual analysis of the returned device revealed that the breast implant was found to have a tear on the anterior view, measuring approximately 1.8 cm.Leak testing was performed, in accordance with mentor procedures, and no more leak sites were detected during the analysis.Microscopic examination was performed, and the cause of the tear could not be identified.Therefore a thickness measurement was conducted on the shell at the tear, and the thickness was within manufacturing specifications.Mentor also performed a manufacturing record evaluation related to the reported complaint for the finished device lot number.No manufacturing non-conformances were identified as part of this evaluation.Although no conclusion could be reached on the cause of the rupture found, the instructions for use contain the following caution: causes of deflation of saline implants include but are not limited to the following events: crease fold failure, intraoperative or postoperative trauma, excessive stresses or manipulations as may occur during normal, daily routines including customary and purposeful trauma such as that which can occur during vigorous exercise, athletics, etc.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: no corrective and preventive action (capa) is required now.Additional complaint information monitoring for potential safety signals is conducted through complaint trending as part of post market surveillance.Manufacturer¿s reference number: (b)(4).
|
|
It was reported that a 38-year-old hispanic female patient underwent revision breast augmentation with 420cc mentor smooth round high profile on both sides and experienced breast implant deflation on her left side postoperatively; diagnosed after physical exam.The patient has consulted with the healthcare professional.As a result, the device was explanted on (b)(6) 2025.On (b)(6) 2025, the mentor failure analysis lab received the two devices with same lot number engraved and were both found damaged upon evaluation.Hence, this report details investigation results for the second (right side) as malfunction since no issue was reported for the right side.
|