The subject device was not returned for evaluation nor was the specific device item number reported.Subject device named in the received motion did not identify specific product id numbers.Based on this, the subject device could be one of two katena devices or even a competitor's device with the "rosen" name.The two subject "rosen" devices have been in commercial distribution, by this manufacturer, since november 1993 & february 1995 respectively.A review of katena's rosen device manufacturing processes and quality control methods confirmed, no anomalies or changes that could adversely affect device safety or effectiveness.Examination of two representative sample rosen devices did not find any abnormalities that could cause product failure as reported.Review of manufacturers complaint handling system database no other adverse reportable events for this subject device.
|
Report of legal motion indicates post cataract surgery on (b)(6) 2016 a 1mm metal flake was observed in sub-incisional iris.Patient required an mri for other medical issues and there was concern for the metal flake in the iris.Based on this, subsequent surgical intervention, to remove foreign body, was performed but, not successful in that the metal fragment was firmly adherent to the iris and surgeon was concerned forcible removal could disinsert the iris.Surgeon reported he did not believe this foreign body would be a risk for movement during an mri and that removal would involve cutting iris tissue, which he did not think was justified given the low risk.
|