Skip to content

ProACT - Implantation Instrument Set 750041Recalls & reported problems

Uromedica Inc · Implant

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
5
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
5
Recalls naming it
1

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 5 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00180668000106), received between Jul 23, 2020 and Oct 11, 2023 — classified as 5 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method” (4 reports).

1 FDA recall record name this device's identifier.

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Recalls naming this device

  1. Nov 22, 2021Class IITerminated

    The U-channel sheaths may cause damage to ProACT implant devices when the devices are passed through the sheath during a ProACT implantation procedure.

    Z-0458-2022 · Root cause: Nonconforming Material/Component · Recall details · FDA record ↗

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method4
  • Use of Device Problem1

Patient problems

  • Internal Organ Perforation5

Recent adverse event reports

The 5 most recent of 5 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryOct 11, 2023Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method

    BOTH BALLOONS WERE PLACED BUT DR. ART OPTED TO PLACE THE LEFT BALLOON MORE MEDIAL THAN ORIGINAL DEPLOYMENT TO THE URETHRA. UPON SUBSEQUENT FLUOROSCOPY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE BLADDER WITH CONTRAST WAS DEFLATING. A SMALL URETHRAL PERFORATION WAS IDENTIFIED AT THE 3 O CLOCK POSITION. THIS WOULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE SHARP TROCAR OR OPEN U-CHANNEL. THE LEFT SIDE WAS ABORTED AND THE DEVICE WAS NOT PLACED. THE RIGHT SIDE WAS LEFT IN PLACE. REVISION LEFT SIDE SCHEDULED FOR (B)(6) 2023.

    Patient problems: Internal Organ Perforation

    MAUDE report 17916219 ↗
  • InjuryDec 21, 2021Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method

    INTEROPERATIVE URETHRAL PERFORATION IN A PROACT PATIENT.

    Patient problems: Internal Organ Perforation

    MAUDE report 13054388 ↗
  • InjurySep 9, 2021Use of Device Problem; Use of Device Problem

    BLADDER PERFORATION IN A MALE PATIENT DURING A PROACT REVISION PROCEDURE. THE PATIENT'S LEFT-SIDE PROACT WAS IMPLANTED WITHOUT INCIDENT, BUT THE PATIENT'S BLADDER WAS PERFORATED WITH THE SHARP-TIPPED TROCAR DURING DILATION FOR THE PATIENT'S RIGHT SIDE PROACT. PATIENT SENT HOME WITH CATHETER.

    Patient problems: Internal Organ Perforation

    MAUDE report 12446446 ↗
  • InjuryAug 2, 2021Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method

    URETHRAL PERFORATION AT THE BLADDER NECK IN A PROACT PATIENT DURING IMPLANT. PATIENT SUCCESSFULLY IMPLANTED. PROACT BALLOONS PLACED AT THE APEX OF THE PROSTATE RATHER THAN THE BLADDER NECK, THE ORIGINAL INTENDED LOCATION. PERFORATION TREATED VIA CATHETERIZATION.

    Patient problems: Internal Organ Perforation

    MAUDE report 12263341 ↗
  • InjuryJul 23, 2020Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method; Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method

    THE PATIENT'S BLADDER NECK WAS PERFORATED BY AN IMPLANTATION INSTRUMENT (TROCAR) DURING A PROACT IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE. IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE WAS ABORTED. A CATHETER WAS PLACED IN THE PATIENT AND WILL REMAIN FOR 10-14 DAYS. THE PATIENT WAS PUT ON ANTIBIOTICS. THE PATIENT WILL BE IMPLANTED WITH PROACT WHEN THE TISSUES HAVE HEALED. THE INITIAL REPORTER'S RESIDENT WAS PERFORMING THE PROACT PROCEDURE AND PERFORATED THE BLADDER NECK. THE INITIAL REPORTER STATED THAT SURGICAL ERROR WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ADVERSE EVENT.

    Patient problems: Internal Organ Perforation

    MAUDE report 10316066 ↗

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page