Clareon CCWTT4 (UDI 00380652457866)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
- 5
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 4
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 5 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00380652457866), received between Sep 28, 2022 and Oct 15, 2025 — classified as 4 injuries, 1 malfunction.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Contamination with Chemical or Other 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 16, 2026.
Reports received per month
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem3
- Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material1
- Material Twisted/Bent1
- Optical Decentration1
- Scratched Material1
Patient problems
- Blurred Vision2
- Visual Impairment2
- Capsular Bag Tear1
- Dry Eye(s)1
- Insufficient Information1
Recent adverse event reports
The 5 most recent of 5 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryOct 15, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
A NON-HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT DURING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE THE PATIENT HAD A POSSIBLE TORN CAPSULE. THE LENS WAS EXPLANTED DURING INITIAL PROCEDURE. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED ON SAME DAY AND THERE WAS NO FURTHER IMPACT TO THE PATIENT. IN THE SURGEON¿S OPINION, THE PRODUCT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO OR CAUSE THE EVENT. PATIENT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED AND IN THE SURGEON¿S PROGNOSIS THE PATIENT VISION WAS IMPROVED.
Patient problems: Capsular Bag Tear
MAUDE report 23299241 ↗InjuryOct 15, 2025Optical Decentration; Material Twisted/Bent; Optical Decentration; Material Twisted/Bent
A NON-HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT, AFTER INTRAOCULAR LENS IMPLANTATION SURGERY, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED BLURRY VISION. HENCE THE LENS WAS EXPLANTED. THE CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT WAS DECENTERED IOL (INTRAOCULAR LENS) - ONE OF THE HAPTIC NOT FULLY EXTENDED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED.
Patient problems: Blurred Vision
MAUDE report 23289714 ↗InjuryMar 12, 2023Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
A NURSE REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE LENS WAS EXPLANTED IN A SECONDARY PROCEDURE. THE CLINICAL REASON FOR THE EXPLANT WAS ASTIGMATIC SURPRISE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 16527278 ↗InjuryDec 14, 2022Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem
A PHYSICIAN REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED POOR VISION QUALITY VISION AND NOT IMPROVED WITH THE REFRACTION/DRY EYE THERAPY. THE IOL WAS EXCHANGED IN A SECONDARY PROCEDURE FOLLOWING THE INITIAL PROCEDURE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED AND PROVIDED THAT THERE WAS NO PATIENT HARM AND NO HOSPITALIZATION. THE PATIENT HAD DOUBLE VISION, UNHAPPY WITH DISTANCE AND NEAR VISION.
Patient problems: Blurred Vision; Dry Eye(s); Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 15975943 ↗MalfunctionSep 28, 2022Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material; Scratched Material; Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material; Scratched Material
AN OPHTHALMIC SURGEON REPORTED THAT DURING A CATARACT EXTRACTION WITH INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, A LONG (2.5MM) BLEMISH WAS OBSERVED, CENTRAL ANTERIOR ON THE IOL. ATTEMPTED TO ASPIRATE THE BLEMISH WAS INITIALLY WITH IRRIGATION AND ASPIRATION AND DID APPEAR TO REMOVE SOME OF THE BLEMISH. A CENTRAL SCRATCH STILL APPEARED AND PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH SINSKY TYPE INSTRUMENT WAS USED TO TRY AND REMOVE BLEMISH, AS WELL AS CONTINUED ASPIRATION, BUT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE. LENS WAS THEN EXCHANGED. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED STATING THE BLEMISH ON THE IOL WAS LOCATED ON THE CENTRAL ANTERIOR SIDE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY AN APPROXIMATELY 1.5-2.0 MM BLEMISH IN A LINE. AFTER COPIOUS IRRIGATION AND MANIPULATION TRYING TO REMOVE, SOME OF THE BLEMISH WAS REMOVED; HOWEVER, AN APPROXIMATE 1MM LINE WAS STILL ON THE IOL AND COULD NOT BE REVIVED.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 15495686 ↗
Other intraocular lens devices
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens146 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens145 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens144 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens139 reports
- TECNIS SIMPLICITY DIB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens1 recall81 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens129 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens127 reports
- TECNIS IOL PCB00Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · intraocular lens126 reports
Sources and updates
- Device record: FDA GUDID, file dated Oct 13, 2026 · View this device in AccessGUDID ↗
- Adverse event reports: FDA MAUDE, file dated Oct 14, 2026 · each report above links to its original FDA record
- Recalls: FDA Medical Device Recalls, file dated Oct 16, 2026
- Page last rebuilt: Oct 16, 2026. Data downloaded through openFDA, which notes it is not validated for clinical or regulatory use.
How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page