• 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 610-0001
Device Problems Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
Patient Problem Loss of Vision (2139)
Event Date 09/07/2017
Event Type  Injury  
Manufacturer Narrative
The inlay remains implanted and is; therefore, 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.Decreased best corrected distance visual acuity is listed in the device labeling as a known potential risk.(b)(4).
 
Event Description
The patient underwent uneventful implantation of the raindrop corneal inlay in the left eye on (b)(6) 2017.Postoperatively, the patient's best corrected distance visual acuity (bcdva) decreased 2 or more lines compared to baseline.The postoperative bcdva was not provided, and the inlay remains implanted.The patient had concurrent lasik at the time of inlay implantation, and the ocular history includes superficial punctate keratopathy (spk) and dry eye.Additional information has been requested.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
(b)(4).
 
Event Description
At last examination of (b)(6) 2017, the patient's best corrected distance visual acuty (bcdva) was 20/40.Additional information has been requested.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
The explanted inlay was returned to the manufacturer and subjected to visual microscopic inspection and dimensional analysis.The edge thickness and diameter were measured and found to be within specifications.The inlay was received in a dehydrated state with a small portion of the inlay torn-off near the edge and small cuts and particles on the device.These findings are consistent with findings for corneal inlays that have been explanted since surgical instruments are required to remove the device from the eye and place it in a storage container for transport.It should be noted that the device was not properly stored during transport and it was received in a non-hydrated state.(b)(4).
 
Event Description
At the 8-month postoperative visit on (b)(6) 2017, the patient's bcdva had improved to 20/25-2; however, examination revealed that the inlay had decentered inferior-nasally.The inlay was subsequently explanted on (b)(6) 2017.
 
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
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 Key6959912
MDR Text Key89689788
Report Number3005956347-2017-00122
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code LQE
UDI-Device Identifier10850394006013
UDI-Public(01)10850394006013
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P150034
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type company representative,health
Reporter Occupation Medical Assistant
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 12/27/2017
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 Date11/08/2019
Device Model Number610-0001
Device Catalogue NumberRD1-1
Device Lot Number003027
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer12/18/2017
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA? No
Initial Date Manufacturer Received 09/18/2017
Initial Date FDA Received10/18/2017
Supplement Dates Manufacturer Received10/23/2017
11/27/2017
Supplement Dates FDA Received11/21/2017
12/27/2017
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured11/08/2016
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 Age55 YR
-
-