|
A nurse reported that during surgery, they noticed that identified iol haptic amputation after implantation.The lens was cut and explanted, and replaced with another available lens.Procedure was completed on the same day.No patient harm.Additional information has been requested.
|
|
Additional information has been provided in h.3., h.6., and h.11.The product was not returned for analysis.Only photo was returned.The reported complaint was observed on the returned photo.Provided photos show an iol in a lens case base.The lens is not positioned correctly in the well of the lens case base, it appears to be posterior surface up instead of anterior surface up in the iol case.One haptic appears to be broken and sitting on top of the optic.The other haptic appears to be deformed with broken tip.The complainant indicates the use of non company viscoelastic which is not qualified for use with the associated iol model.Based on our observation of the attached photo, " the lens is not positioned correctly in the well of the lens case base, it appears to be posterior surface up instead of anterior surface up in the iol case.One haptic appears to be broken and sitting on top of the optic.The other haptic appears to be deformed with broken tip".According to the information provided by the customer, the most likely root cause is failure to follow ifu, as the customer states the use of a non-qualified viscoelastic.The use of an unqualified ovd may cause damage to the lens and potential complications during the implantation process.Based on the results from the product history record, the products met release criteria.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|