|
It was reported that the johnson and johnson (jnj) intraocular lens (iol) was loaded into emerald cartridge and inserted into the patient¿s eye.The iol fell, slipping to the back of the eye.During re-positioning the haptic became bent and it was decided to remove the lens.During removal one haptic broke off.The doctor had to manipulate the lens carefully.No folding forceps were involved.They used viscoat ophthalmic viscosurgical device (0.2ml at room temperature).The incision was enlarged and sutures were used.Reportedly, it is the doctor¿s standard practice to use sutures.The patient was not harmed.The procedure was completed with a backup lens of the same model.No further information is available.
|
|
Section a2, a3a, a3b, a4, a5, a6, patient information: unknown/not provided.Section d6a, if implanted, give date: not applicable as the iol was removed and replaced during the same procedure.Section d6b, if explanted, give date: not applicable as the iol was removed and replaced during the same procedure.Therefore, not explanted.Section h6- health effect - impact code: 4625 used to capture the incision enlargement section h6- health effect - clinical code: 4581 used to capture the incision enlargement section h6- device code: 1069 used to capture the damaged haptic section h3, device evaluated by manufacturer: the device has not been returned for evaluation.Therefore, a failure analysis of the complaint device cannot be completed.A review of the device history record and complaint trending will be performed.Upon completion of the review, if there is any further relevant information a supplemental medwatch will be filed.Attempt was made to obtain the missing information.However, to date, it has not been received.All pertinent information available to johnson & johnson surgical vision, inc.Has been submitted.
|
|
Additional information: section d9: device available for evaluation? yes.Section d9: date returned to manufacturer: mar 18, 2026.Section h3: evaluated by manufacturer? yes.Device evaluation: the complaint lens was received.The lens was visually inspected revealing that the lens was coated in tape residue.The lens was cleaned and further inspected, and the lens was observed to be damaged with one haptic detached and missing.The other haptic was observed damaged.Based on the complaint investigation results, the product was released within specifications.Conclusion: as a result of the investigation there is no indication of a product quality deficiency, and the reported issue could not be verified.All pertinent information available to johnson & johnson surgical vision, inc.Has been submitted.
|