FDA Closes Recall of Philips Allura Xper FD Systems
The FDA has closed the Class II recall of certain Philips interventional fluoroscopic X-ray systems, citing completion of the corrective action.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 25, 2026, 4:43 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 25, 2026, 4:43 p.m. ETFirst report
Philips Recalls Allura Xper FD Systems Over Firmware Issue
On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted an enforcement report for a recall initiated by Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. on June 29, 2026. The recall, numbered Z-2928-2026, covers Allura Xper FD interventional fluoroscopic X-ray systems, including model numbers 722026, 722027, 722028, 722029, 722035, 722038, 722039, and 722058. The FDA reports that 4,252 units are affected, with distribution worldwide, including the United States and numerous other countries.
The reason for the recall is a firmware issue that could potentially lead to loss of geometry movements. The FDA has classified this as a Class II recall, meaning the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and the chance of serious harm is remote. The recall status is listed as ongoing.
The Allura Xper FD is a motorized interventional fluoroscopic X-ray system used by medical staff for real-time imaging during minimally invasive procedures. It is sold directly to hospitals and imaging facilities as capital medical equipment. According to the FDA's enforcement database, no other enforcement actions are recorded for this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 20:43current
First published.
- Version 125 Aug 2026, 20:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.