|
A facility representative reported that following an intraocular lens (iol) implant procedure, patient reason and clinical reason as mechanical complication.The iol was explanted and exchanged for an unknown advanced technology intraocular lens following the initial implant procedure.Additional information has been requested and received stating that the patient angle alpha is almost 6ou, he was seeing edge of button on the lens.In the surgeons opinion, lens contributed to the event.The iol was explanted and exchanged for a non company lens.There was no further impact to the patient.Issues were resolved.
|
|
Additional information has been provided in d.9., h.3., h.6., and h.11.The lens was returned in a specimen cup.Solution was dried on the lens.One haptic was broken from the gusset area (not returned).The other haptic was broken in the distal tip area (not returned).A dimensional inspection could not be conducted due to the extensive lens damage.The optic was cut into pieces, 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.Associated products were not provided.However, not applicable to the reported complaint.The product investigation could not identify a root cause for the reported complaint.It is unknown what is meant by "angle alpha is almost 6ou, he is seeing edge of button on iol (intraocular lens)".No further information has been provided at this time.The position of the lens while in the eye cannot be determined.Lens damage was observed.All lenses are 100% inspected for cosmetic attributes and the damage exhibited by the returned complaint sample would not have met company¿s release criteria.Based on our observation, and the review of manufacturing records, it can be reasonably concluded that the damage is not manufacturing related.Due to the presence of surgical solution and the condition of the returned sample, the damage is most likely related to customer handling.A dimensional inspection could not be conducted due to the extensive lens damage.Power and resolution testing could not be conducted due to the extensive optic damage.Each lens is subjected to a 100% assessment of the power (spherical and cylinder) and optical resolution during the manufacturing process in order to determine acceptability per the lens model and diopter.The multifocal 21.5 diopter lens, add power +2.2 & 3.2 lens model was replaced with a non-company monofocal iol.Due to the exchange of a multifocal lens to a 0.5 lower diopter monofocal lens, the replacement lens may have been an improved choice for the patient¿s vision needs.No additional information has been provided at this time.Additional information was provided that the patient's issues have resolved.No additional information has been provided at this time.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|