|
A healthcare professional reported during intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, the surgeon noticed that one of the implant legs (haptic) didn't unfold properly in the cartridge.They tried inserting lens into another cartridge, but that didn't change anything.The implant was discarded.Additional information was requested and received stating that unspecified replacement lens was used.The procedure was completed on the same day.
|
|
Additional information was provided in h.3., h.6., and h.11.The product was not returned for analysis.The reporter states the use of "non-company " as a viscoelastic, which is not qualified to be used with the associated product.The reported complaint was not observed as no sample was returned for analysis; however, based on the information provided by the customer, the most likely root cause is failure to follow ifu (instructions for use), as the customer states the use of non-qualified viscoelastic.The use of an unqualified ovd (ophthalmic viscosurgical device) may cause damage to the lens and potential complications during the implantation process.In addition to the above, it is stated in the file that "they tried inserting it into another cartridge, but that didn¿t change anything"; company specific is a pre-loaded device, and the lens must not be removed from it and reloaded into a cartridge and can only be used with the company specific device.Based on the results from the product history record, the products met release criteria the manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|