|
The lens was returned in a small blue plastic open container.Viscoelastic was observed on the lens.The optic was cut into two portions, typical in appearance to damage created to remove a lens from the eye.Each of the cut optic portions were cracked.Product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported complaint of "distorted vision, patient not happy, unable to see".The explanted lens was evaluated.The optic was cut into two portions, typical in appearance to damage created to remove a lens from the eye.Additional optic damage was observed.Each lens was subjected to a 100% assessment of the power and optical resolution during the manufacturing process in order to determine acceptability per the lens model and diopter.The power and resolution of the returned lens could not be re-evaluated due to the optic damage.Information was provided that the company 20.5 diopter (1.5 extended depth of focus) lens was removed and replaced with a non-company lens.The diopter of the replacement lens was not provided.No further information has been provided, if additional information becomes available, the file will be reopened and updated.The information that the extended depth of focus lens model was replaced with a monofocal lens model would suggest that the replacement lens was an improved selection for this patient's vision needs or preferences.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
|
A nurse reported that following intraocular lens (iol) implantation, patient had distorted vision and was unable to see.Patient was unhappy with the outcome.The lens was removed and replaced with another lens in a secondary procedure.According to additional information received, implantation was done in patient's right eye.The patient claimed that it appeared to be looking out of dirty contact.Iol exchange was done with another non-company lens.In the surgeon opinion the issue was not due to the product (iol).
|