|
During the processing of this complaint, attempts were made to obtain complete event, patient, and device information.It was reported that the surgery was uncomplicated and tolerated well by the patient.The patient was seen post op on (b)(6) 2022 and (b)(6) 2022 and the lens and surgical eye were doing well after from where it was positioned at the time of surgery.The patient was next seen on (b)(6) 2022 and the inferior haptic has now separated from the lens body.Each haptic is still in place from where it was positioned at the time of surgery.The lens was removed on (b)(6) 2022, and another lens implanted.No adverse patient effects reported.No additional information provided.The devices has yet to be returned thus, a proper device analysis could not be completed nor the reported issues confirmed.It was mentioned by the customer that there was no damage noted during preparation for use indicating a product quality issue did not contribute to the reported issues.Additionally, it was stated that the customer is using the yamane technique to implant lenses.This technique induces a larger amount of force while trying to position the haptics in the scleral tunnel.Our lenses are intended to be implanted in the capsular bag.Thus, the devices are being used off label.Based on the information provided, the risk assessment for the lucia product and based on our experience and other complaints that have already been resolved we have determined that the following factor may have cause or contributed to the damaged haptic is but is not limited to: loading strategy, lens placement technique, accessory device support, poor handling during folding and inserting.The device history records were reviewed and there were no non-conformities or deviations noted during the manufacturing of the lens that would have caused or contributed to the nature of this complaint.Additionally, our lenses are 100% inspected before they leave our manufacturing site.Therefore, we are confident that the lens was processed per standard operating procedures and inspections and met all criteria for release.The device history records were reviewed and there were no non-conformities or deviations noted during the manufacturing of the lens that would have caused or contributed to the nature of this complaint.Additionally, our lenses are 100% inspected before they leave our manufacturing site.Therefore, we are confident that the lens was processed per standard operating procedures and inspections and met all criteria for release.Reviewing the manufacturing documents did not show any indications for a malfunction of the iols.The products were produced in accordance with the manufacturer's specification and no deviation has been detected.Most probably the incident is caused by off-label use.However, the need to explant the iol is considered medical intervention to avoid impairment or damage thus, this is incident is "reportable.".
|