| Model Number |
AR40E |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Appropriate Device Problem Term/Code Not Available (3191)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Visual Disturbances (2140); No Code Available (3191)
|
| Date of Event |
10/12/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
If implanted, give date: implanted sometime in (b)(6) (year not provided).If explanted, give date: not applicable.Customer indicated that lens was too rigid and scissors were too large to get the lens out.Therefore based on this information it is unclear if it was explanted.(b)(4).All pertinent information available to abbott medical optics has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a patient had an iris prolapse.The lens was originally implanted in (b)(6) (year not provided).The lens was upside down and piggy backed to another lens.Lens was too rigid and scissors were too large to get the lens out.Sutures were required.No other information was provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Additional information: through follow up it was learned that the lens was explanted from a female patient's right eye.It was clarified that during insertion the lens rotated upside down and piggy backed to another lens.Patient had anisometropia.Visual acuity issue was noted.There was no vitrectomy or patient injury post-op.However, incision enlargement was required.Lens was replaced with an ar40 lens.Age/date of birth: (b)(6).Gender/sex: female.If implanted, give date: (b)(6) 2016.If explanted, give date: (b)(6) 2016.Additional reporter - (b)(6).(b)(4).All pertinent information available to abbott medical optics has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Device available for evaluation ¿ yes, returned to manufacturer on 12/20/2016.Device returned to manufacturer ¿ yes.Device evaluation the device was returned to the manufacturer.Device inspection was performed and visual inspection was performed at 10x microscope magnification.Fiber/particles were observed on lens related to the handling of the unit in a non-sterile environment.Residues of viscoelastic solution were observed on lens which indicates that the unit was handled and prepared for surgical use.Lens was observed with two cuts most probably to make the explant process possible.One of the haptics was observed slightly distorted.The complaint issue reported could not be verified.Manufacturing records were reviewed and the lens was manufactured according to specification.The directions for use (dfu) was reviewed.The dfu adequately provides instructions and precautions for the proper use and handling of the intraocular lenses.Based on the investigation results there is no indication of a product quality deficiency.All pertinent information available to the manufacturer has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|