Pt age and weight: unk.Method - 3331 (process evaluation): work order search.Results: - (evaluation result): a lens work order search was performed and no similar complaints were found within the work order.Visual inspection of the returned product found no visible damage to the lens.The lens was returned dry and there was evidence of clear surgical residue.The cartridge and injector were returned with no visible damage to either device.There was evidence of clear surgical residue.Conclusion: (unable to confirm complaint): 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).
|
Method: device history record review, medical review.Results: upon review of the device history record, there is nothing in the manufacturing, inspection and packaging process records to suggest a contributory factor to the complaint.Reportedly, micl was only partially inserted in the eye when the surgeon observed unexpected unfolding and decided to remove/exchange the lens.No report of incision enlargement or any other tissue damage.Another lens was successfully implanted.According to the report by a nurse, dated on (b)(6) 2015, the cause of the event was unknown.The same report stated that there was no patient injury during removal of a damaged lens.No reported postoperative sequelae.Conclusion: based on the complaint history, work order search, product evaluation, medical review, and device history record review, a specific root cause of the event could not be determined.(b)(4).
|