|
A non-health care professional reported that during an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the injector damaged the lens.Additional information was received and stated that, the lens was implanted and later explanted during initial procedure.There was no patient harm.
|
|
Additional information was provided in h.3., h.6.And h.11.A sample was not received at the manufacturing site for evaluation for the report of a damaged lens; however, the attached customer photo confirms the reported issue of a damaged lens.Device/batch record review: a review of the device history record traceable to the reported lot number, indicates that the reported product was processed and released according to the reported product¿s acceptance criteria.The investigation conducted a non-conformance review of the reported lot number.No deviations were identified and all corresponding production release specifications defined in the device master record were met.The photo confirms the reported issue of a damaged lens; however, because an injector sample was not received at the manufacturing site, the root cause for the customer complaint issue cannot be determined.Based on the evaluation of the information received, the investigation was unable to identify the root cause or origin of the reported event.Additionally, no manufacturing-related deficiencies were found that potentially could have contributed to the complaint.While the root cause and its origin are inconclusive, the following factors outlined in the reported product¿s instruction for use (ifu) could potentially contribute to an outcome similar to the reported event.The ifu states that the handpiece must be inspected prior to each use to confirm it is free of damage.It further emphasizes that if the handpiece¿particularly the plunger tip, appears damaged, bent, or otherwise unfit for proper use, it must not be used.In such cases, users are instructed to contact company immediately.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|