| Model Number |
CCWTT3 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Blurred Vision (2137); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A facility representative reported following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the patient cannot see to drive, she's very bothered by her inability to see clearly.The lens was explanted and replaced with monofocal lens in a secondary procedure.The clinical reason for the explant was od vision is an "f".Additional information has been received and stated that following iol implant procedure the patient experienced blurry vision at all distances.No patient harm was reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation including root cause analysis is in progress.A supplemental mdr will be filed as necessary in accordance with 21 cfr 803.56 when additional reportable information becomes available.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information was provided in h.3., h.6.And h.11.The product was not returned.Product history records were reviewed and the documentation indicated the product met release criteria.The account indicated the use of a qualified cartridge and handpiece with a non-qualified viscoelastic.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.Each lens is 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.Information was provided that the company model, 20.5 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2) lens was replaced with an 20.0 diopter, non-company, monofocal lens model.The product has not been received to evaluate.Additional information was provided that the patient had pre-existing vitreous opacities, dry eye syndrome and prior myopic lasik surgery due to the exchange of a multifocal lens to a monofocal lens, this may suggest that the replacement lens model was an improved choice for the patient's vision needs.Due diligence has been performed in an attempt to obtain further information on this event.The reporter has not responded to request for follow-up information.File will be reopened if new information or the sample is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information was provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.The lens was returned wrapped in surgical gauze.Blood and viscoelastic were dried on the lens.The lens was cut into pieces, typical of insertion and removal.Power and resolution testing could not be conducted due to the extensive optic damage.Complaint history and product history records were reviewed and the documentation indicated the product met release criteria.The account indicated the use of a qualified associated cartridge and handpiece with a non-qualified viscoelastic.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.The lens was returned cut into pieces.Power and resolution testing could not be conducted due to the extensive optic damage.The power and resolution of each lens is 100percentage evaluated during the manufacturing process to determine acceptability per model and diopter.Information was provided that the company model(1.50cylinder), 20.5 diopter (add power plus2.2 or plus 3.2) lens was replaced with a non-company, 20.0 diopter monofocal lens model.Additional information was provided that the patient had pre existing vitreous opacities, dry eye syndrome, and a history of prior myopic lasik surgery.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|