| Model Number |
CCWTT0 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Blurred Vision (2137)
|
| Date of Event |
07/15/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
A non-healthcare professional reported that following the intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the patient vision was not good at all distance.This made the patient life and work difficult.The physician was planned to explant lens.Additional information has been received that in-surgeon opinion lens caused or contributed the event.Patient had small palpebral fissure with higher tear meniscus, which was less tolerable by the company lens.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The product was not returned for analysis; the lens remains implanted.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 provided in b.2., b.5., d6b.And h.6.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Additional information has been received that the lens was explanted and exchanged.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information provided in 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 product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.The product has not been received to evaluate.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.Information was provided that the company 18.5 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2) lens was replaced with a non-company, 18.5 diopter, monofocal lens model.Due to the exchange of a multifocal lens to a monofocal lens, this may suggest that the replacement lens model was an improved choice for the patient's vision needs.No additional information has been provided at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6.And h.11.The lens was returned inside a specimen cup.Solution was dried on the lens.The optic was cut across the center, typical of insertion and removal.Power and resolution testing could not be conducted due to the extensive optic damage.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 file indicated the use of associated products.However, they are not relevant to the reported complaint.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.Each lens was 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.The power and resolution of the returned lens could not be re-evaluated due to the extensive optic damage.Information was provided that the company 18.5 diopter (add power +2.2/+3.2) lens was replaced with a non-company, 18.5 diopter, monofocal lens model.Due to the exchange of a multifocal lens to a monofocal lens, this may suggest that the replacement lens model was an improved choice for the patient's vision needs.No additional information has been provided at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|