| Model Number |
ISERT 230 (+14.50 D) |
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
01/12/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This initial emdr is being submitted to fda as a reportable event that occurred in the usa.Haptic damage is indicated as a potential malfunction related to the iol, as covered under the warnings section of the product's instructions for use (ifu).Once the product investigation is completed, a follow-up report will be submitted to fda which will include the manufacturer's codes for type of investigation, findings, and conclusion.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Damaged haptic after implantation.The haptic sheared upon insertion into chamber.The lens was replaced with another lens immediately during surgery; there was no increased incision size; patient health not impacted.Patient condition: failure of implant.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Damaged haptic after implantation.The haptic sheared upon insertion into chamber.The lens was replaced with another lens immediately during surgery; there was no increased incision size; patient health not impacted.Patient condition: failure of implant.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This follow-up #1 emdr is being submitted to fda for a reportable event that occurred in the usa.The report includes corrected information and additional information not available/included in the initial report.Corrected information: h3 -corrected to yes.Additional information: d9 - added date of return.G2 - indicated company representative (for investigation findings).G6 - type of report - noted as follow-up #1.H2 - type of follow-up - noted for corrected information and additional information.H6 - added codes for device problem and for manufacturer's investigation: type; findings; and conclusion.Parts of the product were returned to the manufacturer.The investigation was conducted, with the methods and results as noted below.The optic pieces and one haptic was returned along with the injector.The reported broken haptic was not returned.Appearance check result was consistent to reported information.No abnormalities were found in production and inspection records of the product.(serial no.(b)(6) ; model: 230).We also confirmed there were not any abnormalities on the loop pull strength test record of the material lot.(sosf-60-01), in addition, a trace of polymerization was found on the optic edge, further indicating that the haptic was properly bonded with optic edge when manufactured.The dye test result showed the injector tip was properly coated.Proper coating allows the lens to advance.We could release a re-installed iol from the returned injector without any problems.The exact root cause of the event was not determined.However, based on available information, we believe this event was not caused by our product quality.A review of the most recent complaint trending data indicates that no significant trends have been identified at this time and no capa is required as part of the product evaluation.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|