| Model Number |
VICM5 12.1 (-06.50) |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Blurred Vision (2137)
|
| Date of Event |
11/10/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A healthcare professional reported that following an implantable collamer lens (icl) implantation procedure, the patient experienced refractive surprise.In a separate visit the lens was exchanged for a replacement lens of same length different power.The problem was resolved.Cause of the event was reported as unknown.There are multiple medical device reports associated with this patient.This report is 2 of 2 total reports.Based on the information provided, the risk assessment for our product, and our experience, we have determined the cause or contribution to the reported issue is not indicative of a manufacturing related issue or product deficiency.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A4 - unk.A5 - unk.A6 - unk.H3 - device not returned.H6 - type of investigation: 4110 - work order search: no similar complaint type events were reported for units within the same lot.Claim# (b)(4).Manufacturer narrative: each lens is subjected to a 100% assessment of the power (spherical and cylinder) and optical resolution during the manufacturing process in order to determine acceptability per the lens model and diopter.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Device evaluation data: h3 - device evaluation: lens was returned in micro-centrifuge via dry.Visual inspection found haptic broken.Dimensional found the lens within specifications and functional inspection did not meet original values taken at the time of manufacturing.Claim# (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional data: h6- type of investigation 3331 - device history record (dhr) review; dhr review indicates that the product has been manufactured within the established process parameters and that there is no indication that the manufacturing and/or processing of the device contributed to the complaint issue.Based on postop refraction values the lenses were swapped during return and not during implantation.See claim# 740329 for fellow eye.Claim# (b)(4).Manufacturer narrative comment; the device history records were reviewed and there were no non-conformities or deviations noted during the manufacturing of the lens that would have caused or contributed to the nature of this complaint.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|