|
Corrected information provided in h.6.And b.2.Correction: on initial mdr the product code should have been a24 instead of a0415.Additional information has been provided in h.3., h.6., and h.11.The lens remains implanted.Ten photos were provided.The photos were reviewed by global quality customer affairs (gqca).Ten photographs illustrating various magnifications, lighting conditions, and other photographic aspects are attached in the imported attachments section of the complaint record referenced above.It is unclear whether these photographs depict images taken simultaneously of the same eye, different eyes, or a combination of both.Given that the complaint reports one associated intraocular lens (iol), it is likely that these images represent the same eye; however, the timing of when the photographs were taken relative to each other remains unclear.The following two photographs and their corresponding file names represent two of these ten images.In both photos, the conjunctiva is either not clearly captured or washed out by the photographic illumination.The cornea appears clear, without inflammatory cell deposition or other anomalies.The anterior chamber is clear, showing no signs of inflammation.The iris is dilated, without abnormality.The posterior chamber iol is well-centered, exhibiting multiple diffuse, distinct, small gray opacities with a grainy, fibrous appearance.Although the type of illumination and magnification used in these two-dimensional images do not clearly indicate the precise location of these iol findings, they appear to be located on the anterior iol surface.The iol is clear otherwise, and there are no signs of posterior capsule opacification.While the identity of the gray opacities cannot be determined from this photo review alone, their visual characteristics may suggest inflammatory precipitates on the iol surface in an otherwise quiet appearing eye.However, further assessment is necessary to accurately identify these findings and determine their significance in relation to the associated complaint investigation.Product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.The root cause for the reported white dust/spots on the optic surface cannot be determined.The lens remains implanted.The provided photos were reviewed.The following two photographs and their corresponding file names represent two of these ten images.In both photos, the conjunctiva is either not clearly captured or washed out by the photographic illumination.The cornea appears clear, without inflammatory cell deposition or other anomalies.The anterior chamber is clear, showing no signs of inflammation.The iris is dilated, without abnormality.The posterior chamber iol is well-centered, exhibiting multiple diffuse, distinct, small gray opacities with a grainy, fibrous appearance.Although the type of illumination and magnification used in these two-dimensional images do not clearly indicate the precise location of these iol findings, they appear to be located on the anterior iol surface.The iol is clear otherwise, and there are no signs of posterior capsule opacification.While the identity of the gray opacities cannot be determined from this photo review alone, their visual characteristics may suggest inflammatory precipitates on the iol surface in an otherwise quiet appearing eye.However, further assessment is necessary to accurately identify these findings and determine their significance in relation to the associated complaint investigation.The surgeon indicated that it was not posterior capsular opacification (pco), patient claimed that they didn¿t have any infection after surgery.The surgeon prescribed eye drops.No further information has been provided.File will be reopened if new information is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|