| Model Number |
CCWTT0 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Blurred Vision (2137); Visual Impairment (2138)
|
| Date of Event |
06/19/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A non-healthcare professional reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the patient stated ability to read was okay but distance vision was not good.Unable to read road signs or see tv.The iol was exchanged for non-company lens.Clinical reason for explant mentioned as non-adapt.There was no patient harm.Additional information has been requested.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A product 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 lens was returned inside a non-company holder.Viscoelastic was dried on the lens.The optic was cut into two portions.One optic was torn near a haptic/optic junction beginning at the optic edge and travelling to the outer rings.The optic edge was broken.The broken portion of the lens was not returned.This optic portion has parallel lines of cracked damage from the edge into the optic rings on the posterior and directly above on the anterior in the shape of an instrument used to grasp the lens.The other optic portion has a line of cracked damage near the optic center and two separate small areas that are cracked.The posterior optic has parallel lines of cracked damage from the edge toward the center of the optic rings on the posterior and directly above on the anterior in the shape of an instrument used to grasp the lens.Product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.The cartridge information was not provided.It is unknown if a qualified cartridge was used.A handpiece was indicated that would be qualified if used with a qualified lens/cartridge combination.A viscoelastic was indicated that is not qualified for any company lens/cartridge combinations.The root cause could not be determined for the reported visual issues.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 clinical reason for the explant was non-adaption to the multifocal lens.The 22.0 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2 diopter) lens was replaced with a non-company monofocal of the same diopter.This information that the multifocal lens was exchanged for a monofocal lens would suggest that a monofocal lens was an improved selection for this patient's vision needs or preferences.File will be reopened if new information is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|