|
Lenstec (barbados) inc.Received an e-mail notification stating that the lens was being returned.The lens was returned with the notification "explanted haptics moved into optical zone.Significant anterior capsular phimosis, dragging haptic into optic region".There was no patient injury and another lens was used.The lens was received in pieces in a plastic container; the container was labelled with the lens details and was enclosed in a biohazard bag.The lens was in three pieces which when placed together form the complete lens.A visual examination was performed at 10x magnification using the stereoscopic microscope.Both haptics were intact but the optic was cut in two which separated each haptic.The cross-sectional inspection of the three pieces were jagged, probably because of the lens being cut to facilitate explanation.No other defects were noted.No discrepancies were found as it relates to the batch documentation analysis.The audit determined that all procedures in the manufacturing and packaging of the device had been carried out correctly.Batch reconciliation was 100%.Based on the lens inspection, the damage seen appeared to be deliberate cuts, probably to facilitate the removal of the lens from the eye.There was no evidence to suggest that any aspect of the lens was responsible for the surgical complication reported.Additionally, the way the lens was returned would not have passed our final clean and inspection operation.Furthermore, the assessment from the medical monitor stated that there was no way to conclusively blame the lens for the elective iol exchange.
|