Skip to content

Clareon CNW0T9 (UDI 00380652412766)Recalls & reported problems

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. · CLAREON BLF TORIC · Class 3 · Implant

All models of Clareon (1142)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
1
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 1 adverse event report that list this exact device (DI 00380652412766), received between Apr 20, 2026 and Apr 20, 2026 — classified as 1 malfunction.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Scratched Material” (1 report).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 1 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Scratched Material1

Patient problems

  • Insufficient Information1

Recent adverse event reports

The 1 most recent of 1 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionApr 20, 2026Scratched Material

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED AND IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRIOR TO IMPLANTATION, THE INTRAOCULAR LENS HAD BEEN INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PROCEDURES, WITH NO DEFECTS OR ABNORMALITIES IDENTIFIED AT THAT STAGE. REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF A POTENTIAL SCRATCH AND ITS FUNCTIONAL IMPACT, POSTOPERATIVE FOLLOW-UP INDICATED NO SIGNIFICANT VISUAL DISCOMFORT, AND THE BEST-CORRECTED VISUAL ACUITY REMAINED STABLE AT 8/10. THE POSSIBLE SCRATCH WAS REPORTED NOT TO BE LOCATED IN THE VISUAL AXIS, OR IF PRESENT, IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY NOTICEABLE FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT. BASED ON THE AVAILABLE FINDINGS, NO CONFIRMED DEFECT OF THE IMPLANT WAS IDENTIFIED. A MALFUNCTION OF THE INJECTOR COULD NOT BE ENTIRELY RULED OUT; HOWEVER, NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THIS HYPOTHESIS. AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE, THE INJECTOR IN QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM STOCK. THE POSTOPERATIVE COURSE WAS REPORTED AS FAVORABLE, WITH STABLE CONDITION, UNCHANGED OCT (OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY) FINDINGS, AND NORMAL INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE. ROUTINE FOLLOW-UP WAS TO CONTINUE AS PER STANDARD PROTOCOL. IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF FUNCTIONAL COMPLAINTS AND CLINICAL STABILITY, NO EXPLANTATION WAS PLANNED. AS P

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 24927070 ↗

Other intraocular lens devices

All intraocular lens devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page