| Model Number |
CCWTT3 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Insufficient Information (4580)
|
| Date of Event |
06/17/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
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).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A facility representative reported following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, explanted iol with reason unhappy with vision.Clinical reason for the explant was stated leading haptic was broken.The iol was replaced with unspecified lens approximately two months after initial procedure.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information was provided in h.3., h.6.And h.11.The product was not returned.A device history record review and a non-conformance review of the reported lot number was conducted.The deviation review did not reveal any potential contributing factors to the reported complaint and all corresponding production release specifications defined in the device master record were met.The account indicated the use of a qualified associated cartridge and handpiece with a non-qualified viscoelastic.It was indicated the original lens was implanted (b)(6) 2025; the broken haptic was noted (b)(6) 2025.No issues were reported at the time of implantation.The root cause for the reported broken haptic may be related to a failure to follow the ifu (instructions for use).The viscoelastic indicated is not qualified for the lens/company cartridge combination used.The ifu instructs that an company qualified delivery system and viscoelastic combination should be used.The use of an unqualified combination may cause damage to the lens and potential complications during the implantation process.The root cause for the reported visual issue could not be determined.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.Information was provided that the company lens (1.50cyl), 18.0 diopter (add power +2.17/+3.25) lens was replaced with a non-toric company lens, 19.0 diopter (add power +217/+3.25) lens.Due to the exchange of a toric lens to a non-toric lens, this may suggest that the replacement lens model was an improved choice for the patient's vision needs.Information indicated the patient still complained of vision issues after the exchange.A yag (yttrium aluminum garnet) was performed (b)(6) 2025.No additional complaints noted from the patient after the yag.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Correction information was provided in 3.A., b.5., b.6.And d.10.Additional information was provided in h.6.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information was received stating patient continues to complain vision is not great- yag was scheduled.There was no further impact to the patient.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|