|
The lens was returned on a folded white piece of paper inside a plastic bag.Viscoelastic and fibers from the paper were observed on the lens.The optic was cut into two portions, typical in appearance to damage created to facilitate removal from the eye.The optic has a small gouge and scratched on the anterior surface.Product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.Information was provided that indicated the use of a qualified cartridge and handpiece.A non-qualified viscoelastic was indicated.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported event.The explanted lens was returned in pieces with additional damage.The power and resolution of the returned lens could not be evaluated due to the optic damage.The power and resolution of each lens is 100% evaluated during the manufacturing process to determine acceptability per model and diopter.Based on our observation 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.Follow up information indicated that in the surgeon¿s opinion, an iol quality issue did not cause or contribute to the event.Information was provided that the toric 19.5 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2) lens was replaced with a toric 19.5 diopter (1.5 extended depth of focus) lens.This information may suggest that the replacement lens was a better selection for the patient's vision needs or preferences.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|