Skip to content

Clareon CCWTT5 (UDI 00380652458429)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
2
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 4 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00380652458429), received between Apr 1, 2024 and Dec 31, 2024 — classified as 2 injuries, 2 malfunctions.

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: 1 reportsMay 2024: 1 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 1 reportsDec 2024: 1 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: 0 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

  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem2
  • Break1
  • Device Dislodged or Dislocated1
  • Scratched Material1

Patient problems

  • Halo2
  • Insufficient Information1
  • Visual Disturbances1
  • Visual Impairment1

Recent adverse event reports

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

  • InjuryDec 31, 2024Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED INTOLERABLE HALOS AND NOTICED RINGS AROUND LIGHTS. CLINICAL REASON WAS MENTIONED AS PATIENT WAS UNABLE TO TOLERATE THE LENS. THE IOL WAS EXCHANGED FOR ANOTHER LENS MODEL FOLLOWING THE INITIAL IMPLANT PROCEDURE.

    Patient problems: Halo; Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 21047033 ↗
  • MalfunctionNov 21, 2024Break; Scratched Material; Break; Scratched Material

    A FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED THAT DURING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, LENS HAD AN AMPUTATED HAPTIC AND LENS WAS SCRATCHED, NOTED UPON INSERTION. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Insufficient Information

    MAUDE report 20742919 ↗
  • MalfunctionMay 14, 2024Device Dislodged or Dislocated; Device Dislodged or Dislocated

    A PHYSICIAN REPORTED THAT A 65 YEAR OLD AF HAD 2.31 D OF CORNEAL ASTIGMATISM AT 116 DEGREE ON LENSTAR MEASUREMENT AND 1.92 D AT 118 DEGREES ON TOPOGRAPHY. USING ALCON TORIC CALCULATOR, A COMPANY LENS WAS RECOMMENDED WITH AN IMPLANTED AXIS OF 118 DEGREES. LENS WAS IMPLANTED WITH AN AXIS OF 115 DEGREES. ON SLE, THE IOL APPEARS TO BE ORIENTED AT ABOUT 110 DEGREES. POST OPERATIVELY, THE PATIENT HAS A REFRACTION OF -075+150X160 WITH A VISUAL ACUITY OF 20/30. ACCORDING TO POST OP AUTOKS, THERE IS +2.50 D OF ASTIGMATISM AT 136. ACCORDING TO POST OP TOPOGRAPHY, THERE IS +2.42 D AT 113 DEGREES. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Visual Impairment

    MAUDE report 19308255 ↗
  • InjuryApr 1, 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 INTOLERABLE HALOS. THE IOL WAS EXCHANGED FOR UNSPECIFIED ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY INTRAOCULAR LENSES (ATIOL) LENS MODEL APPROXIMATELY 1 AND HALF MONTHS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL IMPLANT PROCEDURE. THE CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT WAS REPORTED INTOLERABLE HALOS. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Halo

    MAUDE report 19011502 ↗

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