| Model Number |
CCA0T0 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Device Markings/Labelling Problem (2911)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Visual Disturbances (2140)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A physician reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, refractive surprise post operatively, lens could have been labeled wrong.Additional information has been requested and received from physician stating the patient was doing well with a six correction logic (scl) correction.He had most experienced cornea/refractive review the case and he was confident future ptk left eye (os) upon the patient's return late spring will result in a satisfactory outcome.The chances of a mislabeled iol in manufacturing process was extremely low.Most likely the issue was the very different k topos between her od (excellent expected result) and os (refractive surprise).The topo os certainly has a pellucid marginal degeneration appearance which we all know can have wildly unpredictable refractive results given the high rate of k sloping close to the visual axis.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A sample device was not returned for analysis.Complaint history and product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.Root cause has not been identified.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The reporter stated: "the chances of a mislabeled iol in manufacturing process is extremely low.Most likely the issue is the very different k topos between her od (excellent expected result) and os (refractive surprise).The topo os certainly has a pellucid marginal degeneration appearance which we all know can have wildly unpredictable refractive results given the high rate of k sloping close to the visual axis." photographs 1 and 2 do not identify which eye each corresponds to.Photograph 2 exhibits steepening of the inferior cornea, which is not present in photograph 1.The topography image in photograph 2 represents findings that may contribute to the reported event.Based on the two images i reviewed, there is not enough information to determine whether the reported event was or was not related to a manufacturing deficiency.No root cause can be identified with the available information.The product was not returned for evaluation.A definitive determination cannot be made without the evaluation of the physical product.The reporter stated: "the chances of a mislabeled iol in manufacturing process is extremely low.Most likely the issue is the very different k topos between her od (excellent expected result) and os (refractive surprise).The topo os certainly has a pellucid marginal degeneration appearance which we all know can have wildly unpredictable refractive results given the high rate of k sloping close to the visual axis." the manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|