| Model Number |
SA6AT5 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Device Damaged by Another Device (2915); Failure to Eject (4010)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
09/02/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A sample device was not returned for analysis.Complaint history and product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.Root cause has not been identified. there have been no other complaints reported in the lot number. additional information has been requested.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A nurse reported that during an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, a iol became stuck in the cartridge.There was patient contact with the device and the procedure was completed the same day.Additional information was requested.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information was requested and received stating the lens was ripped in half while inserting the lens and during unfolding the lens stuck in plunger.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The lens was returned positioned incorrectly posterior side up in the lens case.Solution was dried on the lens.Both haptics were bent in the gusset and distal area.The optic was pressed between the posts and down into the well area of the lens case.No qualified cartridge returned for evaluation.The customer indicated the use of a qualified cartridge and handpiece.Two viscoelastics were indicated, only one is qualified for the lens/delivery system combination used.Upon return, the lens was observed to be placed into the lens case incorrectly resulting in damage.The reported complaint of ¿lens became stuck in cartridge¿ could not be confirmed because the lens was not returned in a cartridge for evaluation.The observed lens damage may have occurred due to how the lens was positioned in the lens case for return.All lenses are 100% inspected for cosmetic attributes and the damage exhibited by the returned complaint sample would not have met company's 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.Information was provided by a facility representative that the issue may be related to the "1st day" of a "new scrub tech." no further information was provided.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|