Model Number MICL12.6 |
Device Problems
Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size (1583); Appropriate Term/Code Not Available (3191)
|
Patient Problems
Intraocular Pressure Increased (1937); Pain (1994); Swelling (2091); Numbness (2415)
|
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
The reporter stated the surgeon implanted a 12.6mm micl12.6 implantable collamer lens in the patient's left eye (os) on (b)(6) 2014.The lens was explanted on (b)(6) 2014 due to excessive vaulting, elevated intraocular pressure (37mm hg) and the patient complained of pain, numbness and swelling of the face.The lens was exchanged for a shorter lens and the intraocular pressure was 28mm hg.The patient is doing well - 20/25 uc.The reporter stated the cause of the vaulting was the patient's measurements were borderline and the surgeon decided to use the longer lens (surgeon's decision).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(b)(4).Lens not returned.Evaluation, method: work order search.Results : a lens work order search was performed and no similar complaints were found within the work order.Conclusions - (no conclusion can be drawn): based on the complaint history and work order search, a specific root cause of the event could not be determined.(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Method: medical review.Results: per medical review - reportedly icl was explanted/exchanged for a shorter length icl, one week postoperatively, to address excessive vaulting and subsequent elevated iop.Upon lens exchange patient status improved and ucva was 20/25.According to the report by hcp, dated on 05/08/2014, the most likely cause was user error (wrong length chosen by a surgeon) and therefore not related to the device.This correlates with the literature report that placement of the oversized icl could lead to excessive vaulting.(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Results: visual inspection of the returned product found pieces of one haptic torn off and missing.The lens was returned in liquid.Conclusions: based on the complaint history, work order search and the evaluation of the returned product, a specific root cause of the event could not be determined.(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Method: device history record review.Result: based on the results of the investigation, all released devices from the associated work order(s), including the suspected device, have been manufactured within the established process parameters; and there is no indication that the manufacturing and processing of the device contributed to the complaint issue.Conclusion: based on the complaint history, work order search, device history record review, medical review, and product evaluation, a specific root cause of the event could not be determined.Claim #(b)(4).
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Event problem and evaluation codes: method code(s): (process evaluation): device history record review.Result code(s): (failure not detected) : based on the results of the investigation, all released devices from the associated work order(s), including the suspected device, have been manufactured within the established process parameters; and there is no indication that the manufacturing and processing of the device contributed to the complaint issue.(b)(4).
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|