|
A certified ophthalmic assistant reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implantation procedure, the patient experienced blurry inferior vision "like looking through foggy water" since surgery.A corneal abrasion was resolved by postoperative day 4 with no treatment.Post op scan shows inferior glare on cornea.The image was repeated multiple times and every scan shows glare in the same position.Additional information was provided indicating that small forcep teeth marks were observed on the lens during a postoperative examination.Additionally, pieces of the iol were received which would indicate that the iol was exchanged as planned.
|
|
Evaluation summary: the lens was returned in a specimen cup.Solution is dried on the lens.Haptic damage was observed.The optic is cut into multiple pieces, typical of insertion and removal.The returned portions of cut optic has multiple scratches and scuff marks in the shape of an instrument used to grasp the lens.Additional small cracks are observed near the cut damage.The lens was cleaned with lphse for further evaluation.The lens was allowed to dry.Upon drying other then the observed damage, the lens appears clear.Power and resolution testing could not be conducted due to the extensive optic damage.The file indicated the use of a qualified cartridge, with a handpiece, and viscoelastic.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported "persistent blurry inferior vision, corneal abrasion" complaint.There were no other surface inconsistencies or other possible factors observed that might have contributed the reported concerns.The lens appears clear, excluding the cut areas.The power and resolution of each lens is 100% evaluated during the manufacturing process to determine acceptability per model and diopter.The reported forcep marks were observed.All lenses are 100% inspected for cosmetic attributes and the damage exhibited by the returned complaint sample would not have met release criteria.Based on our observation, and the review of manufacturing records, it can be reasonably concluded that the damage is not manufacturing related.Due to the presence of surgical solution and the condition of the returned sample, the damage is most likely related to customer handling.A company representative has discussed the case with the surgeon.The primary concern is they are unable to account for the reflection seen in the corneal tomography.Reviewed several possible associated factors with no clear associations identified.Surgeon was appreciative of the discussion.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|