Skip to content

Clareon PanOptix Pro PXCAT0 (REF PXCAT0.200)Recalls & reported problems

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. · CL PANOPTIX PRO ATME UVA · Class 3 · Implant

Data updated Oct 13, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
5
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
5
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 5 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00380658490348), received between Nov 14, 2025 and Apr 24, 2026 — classified as 5 injuries.

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. How this data works · Data updated Oct 13, 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: 1 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 1 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 1 reportsApr 2026: 2 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 Problem5

Patient problems

  • Visual Disturbances5
  • Blurred Vision2

Recent adverse event reports

The 5 most recent of 5 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryApr 24, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NON-HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT, FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT HAD EXPERIENCED HALOS AND GLARE. THE IOL WAS EXPLANTED AND REPLACED WITH AN UNSPECIFIED MONOFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENS DURING A SECONDARY IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAD BEEN REQUESTED.

    Patient problems: Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 24979352 ↗
  • InjuryApr 24, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NON-HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED HALOS, GLOWS, COULD NOT SEE, BLURRY VISION AND NO COLORS. CLINICAL REASON BEING MENTIONED AS PATIENT DISSATISFACTION. THE IOL WAS EXPLANTED AND EXCHANGED WITH A WITH NON-COMPANY LENS INTRAOCULAR LENS IN THE SECONDARY IMPLANTATION PROCEDURE. PATIENT SYMPTOMS WERE RESOLVED. IN THE SURGEON¿S OPINION, THE PRODUCT CONTRIBUTED TO OR CAUSED THE EVENT. THERE ARE TWO MEDICAL REPORTS ASSOCIATED WITH SAME EVENT. THIS FILE BELONGS TO LEFT EYE.

    Patient problems: Blurred Vision; Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 24979140 ↗
  • InjuryMar 23, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NONHEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT AFTER THE INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANTATION SURGERY, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED DYSPHOTOPSIA. HENCE THE LENS WAS EXPLANTED AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER LENS IN A SECONDARY PROCEDURE. THE CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANT WAS DYSPHOTOPSIA.

    Patient problems: Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 24664233 ↗
  • InjuryJan 16, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NON HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL REPORTED THAT FOLLOWING AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANT PROCEDURE, THE PATIENT EXPERIENCED HALOS AND RINGS. THE IOL WAS EXPLANTED AND EXCHANGED FOR AN UNKNOWN VIVITY LENS IN THE SECONDARY IMPLANT PROCEDURE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REQUESTED. THERE ARE TWO MEDICAL REPORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PATIENT. THIS FILE BELONGS TO LEFT EYE.

    Patient problems: Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 24093162 ↗
  • InjuryNov 14, 2025Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem; Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    A NURSE REPORTED THAT AFTER INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) IMPLANTATION, THE PATIENT HAD BLURRY VISION AT ALL DISTANCES. THE LENS WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A MONOFOCAL LENS IN A SECONDARY PROCEDURE. THE CLINICAL REASON FOR EXPLANTATION WERE, DYSPHOTOPSIA, ANISEKONIA, AND ANISOMETROPIA. ACCORDING TO THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE SURGEON REPORTED THAT THE ADVERSE EVENTS EXPERIENCED BY THE PATIENT WERE DUE TO THE IOL. THE LENS EXCHANGE WAS DONE WITH A NON-COMPANY LENS IN A SECONDARY PROCEDURE. THERE WAS NO FURTHER IMPACT TO THE PATIENT, AND THE SURGEON CONFIRMED THAT THE PATIENT IS DOING WELL.

    Patient problems: Blurred Vision; Visual Disturbances

    MAUDE report 23553104 ↗

Other Lens, Multifocal Intraocular devices

All Lens, Multifocal Intraocular devices →

Sources and updates

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