|
If implanted, give date: not applicable, as lens was not implanted.If explanted, give date: not applicable, as lens was not implanted.Device evaluation: the complaint lens was received in its original lens case.The original folding carton, patient stickers, patient id card, implant notification card, and dfu were received as well.Visual inspection under magnification revealed viscoelastic residue on the optic body and haptics, a bent haptic, and that the lens was received cut in half (but not separated), which is consistent with a lens that was handled during explant or removal and replacement.Based on the return condition of the lens, no further product evaluation could be performed.¿dc-foreign material ¿ loose¿ could not be confirmed, because per the initial report the foreign material was observed ¿during handling but prior to insertion¿, however the return condition of the lens suggests that the lens was handled with viscoelastic residue and then inserted and eventually explanted or removed and replaced, in which the foreign material may have been lost during handling and not returned with the lens for evaluation.The complaint issue could not be confirmed, and no product deficiency could be identified.Manufacturing records review: the manufacturing records for the product were reviewed.The product was manufactured and released according to specification.A search revealed that no additional complaint was received from this production order.Conclusion: as a result of the investigation, there is no indication of a product quality deficiency.All pertinent information available to johnson & johnson surgical vision, inc.Has been submitted.
|