The explanted inlay was returned to the manufacturer and evaluated and subjected to visual microscopic inspection.The findings revealed that a portion of the inlay edge was torn off and some debris was observed on the inlay, presumably the sebaceous debris as reported by the customer.The torn condition of the inlay is consistent with findings for inlays that have been explanted.The device history record (dhr) for this manufacturing lot was reviewed and the device met all release criteria and there were no discrepancies or unusual findings that relate to the reported event.It is unknown if the first inlay potentially contributed to the events following implantation of the replacement corneal inlay, therefore an mdr is being filed for both devices.Corneal edema, decreased visual acuity, inlay shifts in position, intraocular pressure rise, and inlay removal are listed in the device labeling as known complications of corneal inlay surgery.Complaint reference number: (b)(4).Reference mdr #3005956347-2016-00004 (for the replacement corneal inlay).Date emdr submitted to fda: 11/9/2016.
|
Corneal inlay implantation was performed on (b)(6) 2016 on the patient's right eye.At the one-day postoperative visit, the patient presented with some sebaceous interface debris.At the one-week postoperative visit on (b)(6) 2016, debris was graded as 1+ and the patient's best corrected distance visual acuity (bcdva) remained unchanged at 20/20 (compared to the baseline).At this visit the corneal flap was irrigated, which required replacement of the corneal inlay.There was no reported problem with the initial or replacement inlay.Patient follow-up information was received on october 11, 2016, indicating that on (b)(6) 2016 the patient had presented with corneal edema, an inferior shift in inlay position, elevated iop (40 mmhg), and a significant decrease in bcdva (20/150 as compared to 20/20 at baseline).At this visit, the replacement inlay was explanted and no new inlay was implanted.Additional information has been requested.
|