CT LUCIA CT LUCIA 602.US/+23.0DRecalls & reported problems
Carl Zeiss Meditec Production, LLC · 3-piece, monofocal, hydrophobic, acrylic, intraocular lens, +23.0D · Class 3 · Implant
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 6
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 6
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 6 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00843045100997), received between Jun 20, 2023 and Jul 27, 2026 — classified as 6 injuries.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Use of Device Problem” (5 reports).
3 other recalls cover devices cleared under the same FDA submission (P100016); they may or may not involve this specific model.
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
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Use of Device Problem5
- Off-Label Use3
- Optical Decentration2
- Device Handling Problem1
Patient problems
- Visual Impairment5
- Insufficient Information1
Recent adverse event reports
The 6 most recent of 6 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryJul 27, 2026Device Handling Problem
The customer reported that the lens CT Lucia 602 was implanted and subsequently explanted. No patient injury was reported. No additional information provided..
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 50038831 ↗InjuryNov 19, 2025Use of Device Problem; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING SURGERY THE HAPTIC ON THE CT LUCIA 602 DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY INTO THE EYE AND WAS CATCHING ON THE IRIS. THE SURGEON CUT IT OUT AND USED A BACKUP CT LUCIA 602 LENS. THIS WAS NOT A HAPTIC ROTATION AND SIMPLY AN ERROR DURING INJECTION. NO NEGATIVE PATIENT IMPACT WAS REPORTED.
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 23594400 ↗InjuryJul 3, 2024Use of Device Problem; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE HAPTIC WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE OPTIC CORRECTLY AND THIS MADE THE LENS TORQUE IN THE EYE. LENS WAS EXPLANTED AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER LENS IN THE SAME SURGERY.
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 19672301 ↗InjuryApr 30, 2024Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem; Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE HAPTIC BROKE AFTER IT WAS IMPLANTED. THE LENS WAS EXPLANTED AND ANOTHER CT LUCIA 602 LENS WAS IMPLANTED DURING THE SAME PROCEDURE. YAMANE TECHNIQUE WAS USED.
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 19216153 ↗InjuryJun 20, 2023Optical Decentration; Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem; Optical Decentration; Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem
(B)(6) IMPLANTED A CT LUCIA ON (B)(6) 2023. ON THE DAY OF IMPLANTATION, THE OPTIC APPEARED UNDAMAGED, THE HAPTICS LOOKED FINE, AND PROPERLY POSITIONED. DURING FIRST POST OPERATIVE DAY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE HAPTIC HAD SLIPPED OUT OF THE OPTIC. PATIENT'S VISUAL ACUITY AND SATISFACTION IS UNKNOWN.
Patient problems: Insufficient Information
MAUDE report 17167973 ↗InjuryJun 20, 2023Optical Decentration; Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem; Optical Decentration; Off-Label Use; Use of Device Problem
DR. (B)(6) IMPLANTED THE LENS FINE ON (B)(6) 2023. POST OP DAY 1, (B)(6) 2023, THE LENS LOOKED FINE AND CENTERED. THE PATIENT RETURNED DAY THREE, (B)(6) 2023, AND THE LENS HAD DECENTERED. AT THE TIME, THE DOCTOR ASSUMED THE HAPTIC HAD SLIPPED OUT OF THE SCLERA. ON (B)(6) 2023, THE DOCTOR DECIDED TO EXPLANT THE LENS AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER LENS. THE DOCTOR FOUND THE HAPTIC STILL POSITIONED PROPERLY IN THE SCLERA. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE HAPTIC HAD SLIPPED OUT OF THE OPTIC ON ONE SIDE.
Patient problems: Visual Impairment
MAUDE report 17167970 ↗
Recalls under the same FDA submission
These recalls involve devices cleared under P100016. One submission often covers many models, so check the product and lot details in each record.
- Z-1309-2015 · Feb 13, 2015 · TerminatedIntraocular Lens (IOL), Part No. EC-3 PAL, Diopter: 17.5, 18.0, 18.5, 19.0, 19.5, 21.5, 23.5, 9.0, 22.5, 23.0, 21.0, 24.0. The device is indicated for primary implantation in the
- Z-1077-2012 · Aug 2, 2011 · TerminatedPrecision Aspheric Lens (PAL) Intraocular Lens Model: EC-3 PAL, Serial Number: 1169381106, 1169391106, 1169421106 The device is indicated for primary implantation in the capsular
- Z-1076-2012 · Aug 2, 2011 · TerminatedIntraocular Lens (IOL). Model: EC-3, Serial Number: 1169371106, 1169401106, 1169471106 The device is indicated for primary implantation in the capsular bag of the eye for the visu
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 18, 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