Risk of Recall Among Plastic Surgery Devices Cleared Through the FDA 510(k) Pathway
Clicks: 3
ID: 319208
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #53 of 81 articles by views in Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background The FDA 510(k) pathway is the predominant route by which medical devices reach the US market. Prior studies have examined recall risk across broad FDA panels, but none have characterized plastic surgery devices or compared recall patterns across subcategories within the field. Objectives To determine the rate and severity of FDA recalls among 510(k)-cleared plastic surgery devices, compare recall risk across subcategories, and benchmark against all other 510(k) devices. Methods All 510(k)-cleared devices (2008-2023) were obtained from the FDA premarket notification database. Two reviewers classified 234 Surgery panel product codes, identifying 103 plastic surgery codes (3,194 devices) in 8 subcategories. Each device was matched to the FDA recall database by its 510(k) number. All remaining 510(k) devices (n = 45,182) served as comparator. Recall rates were compared using χ2 tests and risk ratios; time to first recall was modeled with Cox proportional hazards regression with Bonferroni correction. Results Of 3,194 plastic surgery devices, 197 (6.2%) were recalled, including 11 Class I recalls (0.3%). The recall rate for all other 510(k) devices was 11.4% (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47-0.62; P < 0.001). After Bonferroni correction, 4 subcategories had elevated recall hazard versus Lasers & Energy: Implants & Fixation (HR, 3.64), Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (HR, 2.53), Surgical Mesh & ADM (HR, 2.46), and Wound Closure (HR, 2.01). Conclusions Plastic surgery 510(k) devices had a lower recall rate than non-plastic surgery devices, though risk varied substantially across subcategories. These data provide a specialty-specific baseline for postmarket device surveillance.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7166836210
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Ravi Dhawan, Alexandra Boric, Orr Shauly, Troy Marxen, Anjali Om, Kendall Brooks, Gabriela García Nores, Albert Losken |
| Journal | Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/asjof/ojag126
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.