|
A physician reported about an intraocular lens (iol) stating during procedure there was a problem with the iol coating (the iol looked blue) after implantation.The surgery was completed without product replacement.There was no patient harm so far.Additional information was requested and received stating during the initial surgery, it had been confirmed that parts of iol coating was peeled off by rubbing with the tip of ia.Additionally, the lens was explanted and replaced to other manufacturer due to refraction error and poor vision.The surgeon suspects refraction error and poor vision might be caused by iol coating issue (iol looked blue).
|
|
Additional information was provided in a.1., a3.A., b.6., h.3., h.6 and h.11.The product was returned for analysis.Intra ocular lens (iol) was received in a plastic bag, adhered to a small plastic container and wrapped in a tin foil, no product identification.A significant amount of solution is observed on the iol.No damage observed.The reported blue not observed.Iol cleaned.There are marks or fractures on the posterior and anterior of the optic, these are most likely from a forceps, the marks start at one of the optic edges and run across the centre of the iol, stopping just past the centre.The optical performance and image quality testing could not be conducted due to damage to the optic.The returned short video shows iol implantation.The nozzle tip is already inserted in the wound and the iol is exiting the nozzle tip when the video starts.The iol enters the eye and starts to unfold.A surgical tool is used to orientate the iol in the eye.When the iol settles into position the same surgical tool and another surgical tool (possibly irrigation and aspiration (ia) tool) is used in what appears to be an attempt to show reflections over the iol surface.Light reflections are observed at times, no polychromatic sheen observed.The returned iol has sustained optic damage due to handling, rendering optical performance and image quality testing unreliable.Review of the production history records confirms that all release criteria for power and resolution were met.Complaints have been received describing that lenses were reported by doctors for the presence of a polychromatic sheen visible.The cause of sheen or film like appearance is a result of a change in the positioning of the iol during the manufacturing process and is not associated with any foreign material or contamination.The observation has been reported clinically and confirmed in laboratory settings to rapidly disappear following implantation and should no longer be visible, or very little remaining, by the one day postoperative visit.The appearance is a result of a temporary change in the surface of the iol that occurs during the delivery process which is only visible under certain orientations and illumination settings.This quickly resolves once the iol is delivered and exposed to intraocular temperature over time.There are no adverse impacts or lasting effects on the iol or the patient, and no adverse events or clinical impact on vision have been reported associated with this finding.No reports of impact to visual function in any of the complaints reported.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|