| Model Number |
ZLB00 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Inadequacy of Device Shape and/or Size (1583)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Visual Disturbances (2140); No Code Available (3191)
|
| Date of Event |
09/28/2016
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).All pertinent information available to the manufacturer has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a a zlb00 8.0 diopter (d) intraocular lens (iol) was explanted due to patient experiencing severe distorted vision following the cataract surgery.The lens was replaced with the same model lens with a 9.5 diopter.The was no incision enlargement or vitrectomy required.There was no patient injury reported.Through follow up it was confirmed physician preformed the iol exchange due to a miscalculation and overcorrection of the iol power.Additionally, it was learned that the patient's refraction was +1.25 best corrected 20/60 after the zlb00 8.0 d iol was implanted.Prior to surgery patient's left eye (os) was best corrected 20/25 with -8.25 sphere (sph).
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Corrected data: upon further review of the report, it was observed that the evaluation code (b)(4) provided in the initial report should have been (b)(4).Furthermore, method code (b)(4) is now updated to (b)(4) as the device has been received and evaluated.Additionally, a summary for the manufacturing record review and labeling review (method and result codes) was inadvertently not included in the initial mdr.The summary for the coding is being provided in this supplement.Manufacturing records were reviewed and the lens was manufactured according to specification.A search on complaints revealed that no similar complaints were received for this production order number.Labeling review: the directions for use (dfu) was reviewed.The dfu adequately provides instructions and precautions for the proper use and handling of the device.Additional information: device available for evaluation ¿ yes, returned to manufacturer on 03/23/2017.Device returned to manufacturer ¿ yes.Device evaluation: the device was returned to the manufacturer.Visual inspection with the unaided eye shows the product is cut in pieces, most probably to make explant possible.Considering the condition of the lens additional analysis is not possible.The reported issue could not be confirmed in the returned sample.Based on the investigation results there is no indication of a product quality deficiency.All pertinent information available to the manufacturer has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Corrected data: upon further review, it was identified that evaluation codes and additional mfr narrative in the initial report contained incorrect information.(b)(4) enlargement was inadvertently reported.This report is to clarify that for this event, incision enlargement was not required.All pertinent information available to the manufacturer has been submitted.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|