| Model Number |
SN60WF |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Material Twisted/Bent (2981)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Corneal Edema (1791)
|
| Date of Event |
10/16/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A non-healthcare professional reported that during an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, while inserting the lens and deploying the haptics, they noticed that one haptic was loose.So, they proceeded to remove the lens and replace it with another iol of the same diopter.Lens with amputated haptic inside the capsular bag.The amputated haptic was the proximal one, that was the one that pushes the injector.During the implantation there was no resistance from the injection mechanism.Additional information received stating that the lens was removed and replaced during the same procedure.It was cut inside the anterior chamber and removed in pieces.A new lens with the same diopter strength was injected as the one that was removed.The incision was enlarged, and a suture was left.There was corneal edema, which was in the process of deflation.Anatomically, the lens was centered in the capsular bag, the pupil was round, and the chamber was formed.The patient¿s outcome was unchanged.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The product was not returned for analysis.Provided photo shows an intraocular lens (iol) carton and a closed lens case (lens case with sn (b)(6)).The reported event cannot be confirmed from the returned photo.The reporter states the use of "non-company ovd", this is not qualified for use with the associated iol model.The reported complaint could not be observed on the returned photo and no sample was returned for analysis; however, based on the information provided by the customer, the most likely root cause is failure to follow instructions for use (ifu), as the surgeon states the use of non-qualified viscoelastic.The use of an unqualified combination may cause damage to the iol and potential complications during the implantation process.Based on the results from the product history record, the products met release criteria.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 returned for analysis and the reported complaint was observed.Intraocular lens (iol) returned in lens case in four segments, adhered to each other with solution.Both haptics are broken or torn and returned.The optic is torn or split-cut dividing the iol in two and scratched or marked-rejectable.Photo review: provided photo shows an iol carton and a closed lens case.The reported event cannot be confirmed from the returned photo.Additional photos provided shows an opened lens case, a mangled iol is observed in the lens case base well.Additional information: the reporter states the use of non-company ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (ovd), this is not qualified for use with the associated iol model.While we are unable to determine the origin of the reported complaint, our observations reasonably suggest that it is not manufacturing related.Based on the information provided by the customer, the most likely root cause is failure to follow instructions for use (ifu), as the surgeon states the use of non-qualified viscoelastic.The use of an unqualified combination may cause damage to the iol and potential complications during the implantation process.Based on the results from the product history record, the products met release criteria.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|