|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.Correction information b.5., b.7.The lens was returned inside a plastic specimen cup with a screw top lid.Viscoelastic was dried on the lens.No damage was observed.The lens was cleaned with klrp to further evaluate.After removal of the dried viscoelastic, there was no lens damage observed.A dimensional (plan view) inspection was conducted.The lens was within specifications per the approved template.Product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.Information was provided that indicated the use of a qualified cartridge, handpiece, and viscoelastic combination.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported complaint of blurred vision, explant.Each lens is subjected to a 100 percent 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 was retested.The lens met specification for power and resolution for a company 10.0 diopter lens.Additional information was provided that, in the surgeon opinion, a quality issue with the lens did not cause or contribute to the event.The multifocal company 10.0 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2 diopter) lens was removed and replaced with a non-company 10.0 diopter lens.Due to the exchange of a multifocal 10.0 diopter lens to an extended depth of focus 10.0 diopter lens, this suggests that the design difference from a multifocal company lens to an extended depth of focus lens for the replacement lens may have been an improved choice for the patient vision needs.File will be reopened when new information or the product is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|