|
A non-healthcare professional reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the lens was dislocated and progressively moved nasally.The patient experienced blurred vision and saw rings to the lateral aspect of his vision.It appeared that the capsule was fibrosing, though his pupil did not dilate enough to allow visualization on that day.The patient returned to the operating room, where a non-company pupil expansion ring was used to hold the iris open, inflate the capsule, and rotate the implant to ensure stability and centration.The patient had previously undergone phacoemulsification and an intraocular lens procedure but was dissatisfied with the quality of visual acuity at both distance and near in the affected eye.He was straining to see and was unable to drive, watch tv, or read.He had monocular diplopia.During the lens repositioning procedure, complications occurred including vitreous loss, and an anterior vitrectomy was performed.The temporal haptic of the intraocular lens was grasped, and scissors were used to cut the lens implant optic in half.Each half was dialed out of the wound.A company posterior chamber lens implant was then injected into the eye and placed into the ciliary sulcus without complication.The lens was exchanged for another model with the same diopter and same company 2 months and 25 days following the initial procedure.Clinical reason for explant was mentioned as dislocated lens.
|
|
Additional information was provided in h.3.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.Associated products were not provided.It is unknown if qualified products were used.However, this is not applicable to the reported event.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.Each lens is subjected to a 100 percentage 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 multifocal company 21.5 diopter, add power +2.2 and 3.2 lens was replaced with a monofocal company 21.5 diopter lens.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).
|