|
A physician reported that during cataract surgery with intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, seven days postoperatively, the patient complained of decreased vision.After a consultation, the doctor observed an image in the anterior phase of the intraocular lens that appeared to be some spots in its optical zone.Additional information received stating that the diagnosis was opacity in the anterior region of the iol.Iol exchange will be performed.
|
|
The product was not returned.Two photos were provided.A clinical assessment was done of the photos.The assessment was based solely on the appearance of the intraocular lens (iol) in the photographs received.The images show a magnified view of an eye with a non-dilated pupil.Both appear to be the same photo, with the right image cropped and annotated with two blue oval markings.Illumination appears to originate from a broad, off-axis vertical slit beam cast from the left, extending from the upper eyelid margin to the bottom of the frame.Within the pupil, multiple diffuse irregularities are visible on what appears to be the anterior surface of the iol.However, their precise location on or within the lens cannot be confirmed from these photographs.The areas within the annotation circles are relatively confluent, while others are more discrete.These findings may represent deposits, glistenings, or other opacities.Glistenings would be atypical given the short implantation period and the intensity of the presentation.While this review provides a visual assessment and offers possible interpretations, the findings cannot be confirmed from photographs alone.Additional evidence, such as detailed clinical descriptions, direct examination of the iol (in cases where the lens has been explanted), or other diagnostic information, is required to fully evaluate the lens and determine how these images relate to the reported issue and associated complaint investigation.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.A root cause could not be determined for the reported spots in the optical zone.The lens remains implanted.Two photos were provided.A clinical assessment was done of the photos.The assessment was based solely on the appearance of the intraocular lens (iol) in the photographs received.The images show a magnified view of an eye with a non-dilated pupil.Both appear to be the same photo, with the right image cropped and annotated with two blue oval markings.Illumination appears to originate from a broad, off-axis vertical slit beam cast from the left, extending from the upper eyelid margin to the bottom of the frame.Within the pupil, multiple diffuse irregularities are visible on what appears to be the anterior surface of the iol.However, their precise location on or within the lens cannot be confirmed from these photographs.The areas within the annotation circles are relatively confluent, while others are more discrete.These findings may represent deposits, glistenings, or other opacities.Glistenings would be atypical given the short implantation period and the intensity of the presentation.While this review provides a visual assessment and offers possible interpretations, the findings cannot be confirmed from photographs alone.Additional evidence, such as detailed clinical descriptions, direct examination of the iol (in cases where the lens has been explanted), or other diagnostic information, is required to fully evaluate the lens and determine how these images relate to the reported issue and associated complaint investigation.Information was provided that the surgeon was going to attempt to "clean" the iol.If the procedure does not achieve the expected results, the surgeon will contact company again to request a replacement lens.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|