Skip to content

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

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 1 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 1 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: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 1 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

  • 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 · Terminated
    Intraocular 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 · Terminated
    Precision 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 · Terminated
    Intraocular 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

All Intraocular Lens devices →

Sources and updates

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