|
Correction information provided in b.2.Additional information provided in a.2., a.3.A., b.5., b.6., b.7., d.9., d.10., e.4., h.3., h.6.And h.11.The lens was returned submerged in clear solution inside a plastic specimen jar placed into a large biohazard bag.The lens was removed from the liquid and allowed to air dry.Patterns of residual viscoelastic were observed on the lens.One haptic was broken in the gusset area.The broken haptic was not returned.The optic was broken in jagged lines of damage into pieces.Only two pieces were returned.The optic has splintering tears, cracks and scratches that emanates from the jagged line of damage to the optic.The optic edge of one portion has a semi-circle area that was cracked.Another optic portion was torn from the edge toward the center.Another edge area was observed to be split and scraped at the end of the split damage, located on the posterior surface.Product history records were reviewed and the documentation indicated the product met release criteria.A qualified cartridge and viscoelastic were indicated.The handpiece information was unknown.It is unknown if a qualified handpiece was used.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported complaint.Each lens was 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 could not be re-evaluated due to the optic damage.Information was provided that the company 17.0 diopter (1.5 extended depth of focus) lens was removed and replaced with a company another model 16.5 diopter lens.Due to the exchange of a company 17.0 diopter (1.5 extended depth of focus) lens for a monofocal company another model 16.5 diopter lens, this suggests that the replacement lens may have been an improved choice for the patient's vision needs.File will be reopened if new information is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|