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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: REVISION OPTICS RAINDROP NEAR VISION INLAY; CORNEAL INLAY

  • 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
 

REVISION OPTICS RAINDROP NEAR VISION INLAY; CORNEAL INLAY Back to Search Results
Model Number 600-0001
Device Problem Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
Patient Problem Corneal Clouding/Hazing (1878)
Event Date 07/28/2017
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
The explanted inlay was discarded by the facility and is not available for evaluation.The device history record review of the manufacturing lot was performed and there were no discrepancies or unusual findings related to the reported issue.Corneal haze is listed in the device labeling as a known potential risk.Complaint reference number: (b)(4).
 
Event Description
The patient underwent implantation of the raindrop corneal inlay in the right eye on (b)(6) 2017.Four months postoperatively the patient presented with corneal haze in the operative eye.Topical steroids were prescribed, but medication compliance was questionable.On (b)(6) 2017, the inlay was explanted to address persistent corneal haze.Inlay replacement is being considered once the haze resolves.Additional information has been requested.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Complaint reference #: (b)(4).
 
Event Description
The surgeon provided the following new information.Preoperatively, the patient's best corrected distance visual acuity (bcdva) was 20/20 and there was no decrease in bcdva compared to baseline.Corneal haze was first diagnosed on (b)(6) 2017.Immediately prior to explantation of the inlay, the corneal haze was grade 3+.The patient admitted to being non-compliant with the prescribed postoperative steroid medications and the surgeon believes this was a contributing factor.At last examination one month post-explant, the patient's bcdva remained at 20/20 and although the haze decreased to grade 2-3+, it was still significant.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).
 
Event Description
The surgeon provided the following update.At last examination on (b)(6) 2017, the patient's bcdva was 20/20.The corneal haze improved to grade 1-2+ and all medications were discontinued; the haze is expected to clear over time.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
RAINDROP NEAR VISION INLAY
Type of Device
CORNEAL INLAY
Manufacturer (Section D)
REVISION OPTICS
25651 atlantic ocean dr.,
ste. a1
lake forest CA 92630 8835
Manufacturer (Section G)
REVISION OPTICS
25651 atlantic ocean dr.,
ste. a1
lake forest CA 92630 8835
Manufacturer Contact
pushpita singh
25651 atlantic ocean dr.,
ste. a1
lake forest, CA 92630-8835
9497072740
MDR Report Key6821256
MDR Text Key83670714
Report Number3005956347-2017-00093
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code LQE
UDI-Device Identifier10850394006013
UDI-Public(01)10850394006013
Combination Product (y/n)N
PMA/PMN Number
P150034
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type company representative,health
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 10/30/2017
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? No
Device Operator Physician
Device Expiration Date11/22/2019
Device Model Number600-0001
Device Catalogue NumberRD1-1
Device Lot Number003045
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Was the Report Sent to FDA? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 08/01/2017
Initial Date FDA Received08/25/2017
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received08/28/2017
10/27/2017
Supplement Dates FDA Received09/27/2017
10/30/2017
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? No
Date Device Manufactured11/22/2016
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) Required Intervention;
Patient Age48 YR
-
-