|
A non-healthcare professional reported that after an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, a visiting surgeon from the kaluga branch performed phacoemulsification and implantation of an intraocular lens.After the surgery, complications began.The diagnostic and treatment department was closed, so the scheduled postoperative examination did not take place.After consulting ophthalmologists, the patient was unable to explain which lens had been implanted.The doctors stated that the discharge summary must indicate which lens was used, the method of implantation, and must include a sticker and an identification card from the package.The clinic sent the iol name and serial number by email, but no documents, photos, or stickers confirming the origin of the iol were provided.Anterior segment tomography revealed the cause of the visual deterioration, an 8.1-degree tilt relative to the horizontal plane of the eye.There was a gap with the posterior part of the capsular bag cavity and progression of secondary cataract in the operated left eye.The patient experienced tearing and foreign body sensation, a torn foveal macular, and rotation of the optic and the entire lens by 35 degrees clockwise.The healthcare professional had not confirmed that the event met criteria of reportability.Additional information was requested, but no further information is available.
|
|
Corrected information provided in h.6., in the initial mdr, the imdrf health impact code was reported as f1904; upon review, the appropriate code was determined to be f24.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|