|
A non-healthcare professional reported that after the intraocular lens (iol) implantation surgery, the implanted iol kept moving and was subsequently removed and replaced with a company lens of different model and half diopter less power in a secondary procedure.There had been a haptic issue, it was too bendy and would not hold its position.Additional information has been requested but is not available at the time of this report.
|
|
Additional information provided in b.5, d.9., d.10., h.3., h.6., and h.11.The lens was returned on a moistened, white, instrumental wipe in a large biohazard bag.The optic was cut into two pieces, typical of an insertion and removal.The lens portions were removed and allowed to air dry prior to evaluation.Both haptics were in original positions and no damage was observed to either haptic.The lens was cleaned with klrp to further evaluate.Each of the two optic portions had several cracked lines of damage in the shape of an instrument used to grasp the lens on the anterior optic surface near the edges and directly opposite on the posterior optic surfaces.A pliability test was conducted with each haptic.Each haptic was easily manipulated using tweezers.Each haptic returned to their original positions.The power and resolution of the returned lens could not be re-evaluated due to the 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.A qualified cartridge, handpiece, and viscoelastic combination was indicated.The root cause cannot be determined for the reported complaint of "haptic was too bendy".Information was provided that the lens was moving due to a haptic issue (too bendy, would not hold its position).The haptics were in original positions and undamaged upon return.A pliability test was conducted with each haptic.Each haptic was easily manipulated using tweezers.Each haptic returned to their original positions.The optic was cut into two pieces, typical of an insertion and removal.Optic damage from instruments used to grasp the lens was observed.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 power and resolution of the returned lens could not be re-evaluated due to the optic damage.The diopter lens was removed and replaced with another lens.The lens model and diopter selection is made by the surgeon based on patient's eye anatomy, visual testing and desired visual outcome.It is unknown why a company unspecified lens model (23.5 diopter) was replaced with a company unspecified non-toric lens model that was also.5 diopters less).The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|