The explanted inlay was returned to the manufacturer and subjected to visual microscopic inspection.Dimensional analysis (measurement of edge thickness and diameter) was attempted, but was unable to be performed due to the damaged condition of the inlay, where large portions were torn off and missing.Since there was no report of inlay damage, the damage is presumed to have occurred during the explant procedure.The device history record (dhr) review of the manufacturing lot was performed and there were no discrepancies or unusual findings related to the reported issue.Corneal haze, decreased vision, visual symptoms, and dry eye are listed in the device labeling as known potential risks.(b)(4).
|
The subject was enrolled in the ide clinical trial and underwent uneventful implantation of the investigational corneal inlay in the left eye on (b)(6) 2013.Four months postoperatively, the patient presented with corneal haze in the operative eye.There were numerous recurrences of corneal haze throughout the course of the study and beyond.The haze was characterized as recurrent central haze, grade i.The patient reported experiencing significant visual disturbances (ghosting and foreign body sensation) and dry eye.In addition, best corrected distance visual acuity (bcdva) decreased from 20/20 (preoperatively) to 20/40 immediately prior to explantation, which was performed on (b)(6) 2017.At last examination on (b)(6) 2017, haze was improving and bcdva improved to 20/25.
|