| Model Number |
CCWTT0 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Visual Disturbances (2140)
|
| Date of Event |
10/25/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A facility representative reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, lens was explanted at secondary procedure due to patient experienced halos, glare.The clinical reason for explant was reported to be diffractive iol.The iol was replaced with unspecified monofocal lens approximately eleven months after initial procedure.Additional information was requested.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A product was not returned for analysis.Complaint history and product history records were reviewed and documentation indicated the product met release criteria.Root cause has not been identified.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information was provided in d.9.,d.10.,h.3., h.6.And h.11.The lens was returned inside folded gauze placed into a small plastic bag.Viscoelastic was observed on the lens.One haptic was broken (possibly cut in the gusset area.The broken haptic portion was returned.The optic was cut into two portions, typical of an insertion and removal.The optic edge had two broken areas.The optic material from the broken areas was not returned.The posterior optic was cracked near the edge of one optic portion.The other optic portion has lines of cracked damage in the shape of an instrument used to grasp the lens.A power and resolution retest could not be conducted due to the severe lens damage.Product history records were reviewed and the documentation indicated the product met release criteria.A qualified cartridge and handpiece were used with a non-qualified viscoelastic.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported complaint of "unbearable glare halos, explant".The lens was cut into pieces, typical of an insertion and removal.Additional haptic and optic damage was observed.Each lens is subjected to a 100% assessment of the power and optical resolution during the manufacturing process in order to determine acceptability per the lens model and diopter.A power and resolution retest could not be conducted due to the severe lens damage.Information indicated the clinical reason was no other explanation besides diffractive iol.The company 21.0 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2 diopter) lens was removed and replaced with an unknown monofocal.Due to the exchange of a multifocal lens to a monofocal lens, this may suggest that a monofocal lens was an improved selection for this patient's vision needs.File will be reopened if new information is received.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|