|
Additional information was provided in h.3., h.6.And h.11.The lens was returned inside a plastic specimen cup with a screw top lid.Viscoelastic was dried on the lens.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 and verified.The lens met specification for power and resolution for a company lens 16.5 diopter lens.The multifocal company lens 16.5 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2 diopter) lens was removed and replaced with a non-company 16.0 diopter lens.Not enough lens model information was provided to determine the vision design (monofocal, toric, extended focus) of the replacement lens.Due to the exchange of a multifocal 16.5 diopter lens for a lens that is one half diopter less, 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).
|
|
A non-healthcare professional reported that, after intraocular lens implantation surgery, the patient experienced blurred vision.Hence the lens was explanted and replaced with another lens in a secondary procedure.The clinical reason for explant was other mechanical complications of lens.There was no patient harm.Additional information has been requested.
|