Skip to content

Clareon CCWTT3 (UDI 00380652457293)Recalls & reported problems

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. · Clareon PanOptix Toric UVA · Class 3 · Implant

All models of Clareon (1142)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
4
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
4
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 4 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00380652457293), received between Aug 7, 2024 and Jun 5, 2025 — classified as 4 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (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 16, 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: 1 reportsSep 2024: 2 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: 1 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: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520262
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem3
  • Break1
  • Device Dislodged or Dislocated1

Patient problems

  • Visual Disturbances2
  • Blurred Vision1
  • Corneal Edema1
  • Halo1
  • Visual Impairment1

Recent adverse event reports

The 4 most recent of 4 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJun 5, 2025Break; Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Break; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    A FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE LENS WAS DAMAGED. THE IOL WAS EXCHANGED FOR UNSPECIFIED LENS. CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT MENTIONED AS LENS HAPTIC CRACKED AND UNSEATED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED, RECEIVED STATED AT POST-OP DAY 1 VISIT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE HAPTIC/OPTIC JUNCTION WAS SEVERED, THE LENS WAS DISLOCATED AS A RESULT. IN THE SURGEON OPINION, COMPANY LENS OR INJECTOR CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE EVENT. CURRENTLY THE PATIENT HAS CORNEAL EDEMA THAT WAS IMPROVING.

    Patient problems: Corneal Edema

    MAUDE report 22148965 ↗
  • InjurySep 20, 2024Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NON-HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED BLURRY VISION. CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT WAS PRESBYOPIA. THE IOL WAS EXCHANGED FOR NON-COMPANY MONOFOCAL LENS MODEL 04 MONTHS 11 DAYS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL IMPLANT PROCEDURE. AS PER SURGEON OPINION PRODUCT DID NOT CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTED TO EVENT. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Blurred Vision

    MAUDE report 20268539 ↗
  • InjurySep 4, 2024Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NON-HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT WAS UNABLE TO FOCUS. THE LENS WAS EXCHANGED FOR ANOTHER LENS MODEL 01 MONTH 5 DAYS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE. CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT WAS MENTIONED AS SUBJECTIVE VISUAL DISTURBANCE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Visual Disturbances; Visual Impairment

    MAUDE report 20134536 ↗
  • InjuryAug 7, 2024Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING THE INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT COMPLAINED OF DYSPHOTOPSIA. THE LENS WAS EXCHANGED WITH ANOTHER LENS 9 MONTHS AND 19 DAYS AFTER THE INITIAL IMPLANT PROCEDURE. THE CLINICAL REASON WAS DYSPHOTOPSIA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Halo; Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 19927069 ↗

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