• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OPTONOL LTD. EX-PRESS GLAUCOMA FILTRATION DEVICE; IMPLANT, EYE VALVE

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

OPTONOL LTD. EX-PRESS GLAUCOMA FILTRATION DEVICE; IMPLANT, EYE VALVE Back to Search Results
Model Number P-50 PL
Device Problem No Flow (2991)
Patient Problem No Code Available (3191)
Event Date 01/06/2016
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
A sample device was not returned for analysis.The device history record (dhr) for the batch was reviewed.No abnormalities were found during the dhr review and the product was released according to release criteria.No sample was returned, therefore, the condition of the product could not be verified and visual inspection cannot be performed.The root cause could not be conclusively determined and does not seem to be device related.There have been no other complaints reported in the lot number.Additional information was requested.(b)(6).(b)(4).
 
Event Description
A surgeon reported that approximately two years after a glaucoma filtering shunt was implanted, the intraocular pressure began to increase and was treated with eye drop medication.The filtering bleb was collapsed, so the patient was taken back to surgery for a bleb revision.During the revision, the surgeon was able to determine that there was no fluid passing through the shunt.At that time, the shunt was explanted.Additional information was requested.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Only shunt was received for investigation.During initial inner illumination test, partial blockage of the lumen was found.After cleaning the device the blockage was removed.Light passed through both sides of the restriction unit.Therefore, there is no indication for a manufacturing related factors that could cause the blockage.During production, 100% final inspection is being performed on the entire batch, including visual inspection and inner illumination.If a blockage would be noticed, the product would have been rejected immediately.Having said that, one may conclude that the blockage was formed after the product left the manufacturing plant.The root cause is inconclusive - unable to verify, since the blockage could have been caused by many different reasons during and after the clinical procedure.The blockage does not seem to be product related since after cleaning the device the blockage was removed.Therefore, there is no evidence for an inherent defect that might have caused the event.(b)(4).
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
EX-PRESS GLAUCOMA FILTRATION DEVICE
Type of Device
IMPLANT, EYE VALVE
Manufacturer (Section D)
OPTONOL LTD.
kiryat hatikshoret
communication center
neve-ilan 90850
IS  90850
Manufacturer (Section G)
OPTONOL LTD.
kiryat hatikshoret
communication center
neve-ilan 90850
IS   90850
Manufacturer Contact
eddie darton, md, jd
6201 south freeway
mail stop ab2-6
fort worth, TX 76134
8175686660
MDR Report Key5450872
MDR Text Key38665849
Report Number3003701944-2016-00044
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code KYF
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeBR
PMA/PMN Number
K012852
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type foreign,health professional
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 06/16/2016
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Physician
Device Expiration Date12/30/2015
Device Model NumberP-50 PL
Device Catalogue Number24053
Device Lot Number122931
Other Device ID Number00380650704962
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer05/10/2016
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 01/26/2016
Initial Date FDA Received02/22/2016
Supplement Dates Manufacturer ReceivedNot provided
Supplement Dates FDA Received06/16/2016
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured08/08/2012
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Other; Required Intervention;
Patient Age72 YR
-
-