Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42422336›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026

Risk of Recall Among Plastic Surgery Devices Cleared Through the FDA 510(k) Pathway.

Ravi Dhawan, Alexandra Boric, Orr Shauly, Troy Marxen, Anjali Om, Kendall Brooks, Gabriela García Nores, Albert Losken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The FDA 510(k) pathway is the predominant route by which medical devices reach the US market. Previous 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: The aim of this study was 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 (3194 devices) in 8 subcategories. Each device was matched to the FDA recall database by its 510(k) number. All remaining 510(k) devices ( Results: Of 3194 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; Conclusions: Plastic surgery 510(k) devices had a lower recall rate than nonplastic surgery devices, although risk varied substantially across subcategories. These data provide a specialty-specific baseline for postmarket device surveillance. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic: For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

Identifiers

PMID42422336
PMCPMC13344102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.