| Model Number |
HOYA 255 (+16.50 D) |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Split, Cut or Torn (4008)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Failure of Implant (1924)
|
| Date of Event |
02/02/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Date of implant : (b)(6) 2022.Damaged haptic after implantation.Haptic separation.Device was explanted.Patient impact: intra-operative explant.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This initial and final emdr is being submitted to fda for a reportable event that occurred outside 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).The product was returned to the manufacturer.The investigation was conducted, with the methods and results as noted below.Appearance check result was consistent to reported information.No abnormalities were found in production and inspection records of the product.(serial no.: (b)(4); model: 255).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 was not determined.However, based on our investigation, 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Date of implant : (b)(6) 2022.Damaged haptic after implantation.Haptic separation.Device was explanted.Patient impact: intra-operative explant.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This initial and final emdr is being submitted to fda for a reportable event that occurred outside 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).The product was returned to the manufacturer.The investigation was conducted, with the methods and results as noted below.Appearance check result was consistent to reported information.No abnormalities were found in production and inspection records of the product.(serial no.: (b)(4); model: 255).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 was not determined.However, based on our investigation, 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
|