G-Probe™ Box of 6 11256Recalls & reported problems
Iridex Corporation · Class 2
Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy
- Adverse event reports
- 1
- Deaths reported
- 0
- Injuries reported
- 1
- Recalls naming it
- 0
Summary
The FDA's MAUDE database contains 1 adverse event report that list this exact device (DI 00851089000227), received between May 5, 2026 and May 5, 2026 — classified as 1 injury.
The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Use of Device Problem” (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 18, 2026.
Reports received per month
Most reported problems
Device problems
- Use of Device Problem1
Patient problems
- Eye Injury1
Recent adverse event reports
The 1 most recent of 1 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.
InjuryMay 5, 2026Use of Device Problem
IRIDEX RECEIVED A ADVERSE EVENT REPORT INVOLVING A IRIDEX CYCLO G6 AND A G-PROBE DELIVERY DEVICE. AS PER THE REPORT, DURING CILIARY BODY DESTRUCTION USING TSCPC IN CONTINUOUS WAVE, WHICH IS A TREATMENT TO RESOLVE REFRACTORY GLAUCOMA, THE SURGEON REPORTED SCLERAL PERFORATION IN THE PATIENT'S LEFT EYE. IT WAS REPORTED THAT LASER APPLICATION WAS PERFORMED USING TWO ROWS OF TREATMENT SPOTS. A SUTURE WAS USED TO CLOSE THE PERFORATION. THE SURGEON DISCONTINUED THE USE OF THE DELIVERY DEVICE AND OPENED ANOTHER DELIVERY DEVICE AND WAS ABLE TO FINISH THE LASER PROCEDURE. ALTHOUGH, CONJUNCTIVAL AND SCLERAL BURNS ARE KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED COMPLICATIONS OF TSCPC AND TYPICALLY RESOLVE WITHOUT INTERVENTION WITHIN 24 - 48 HOURS, CONJUNCTIVAL AND/OR SCLERAL PERFORATION ARE NOT CONSIDERED A COMMON OCCURRENCE AND MAY REQUIRE MEDICAL INTERVENTION SUCH AS THE USE OF A SUTURE TO MANAGE THE PERFORATION. THE DELIVERY DEVICE IFU WARNS THE USER OF POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS TO SCLERAL BURNS RESULTING IN SCLERAL PERFORATION. THE POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTORS INCLUDE (1) EXCESSIVE POWER AND/OR ENERGY DELIVERED, (2) THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND/OR TISSUE BENEATH THE DELIVERY DEVICE FOOTPLATE, (3) THE PRESENCE OF PIGMENT OR P
Patient problems: Eye Injury
MAUDE report 25087324 ↗
Other Powered Laser Surgical Instrument devices
- Moxy 0010-2400Boston Scientific Corporation · Powered Laser Surgical Instrument4,572 reports
- SOLTIVE TFL-PLSGyrus ACMI, LLC · Powered laser surgical instrument6 recalls450 reports
- Flexiva TracTip M0068403960Boston Scientific Corporation · Powered laser surgical instrument562 reports
- Moses™ AC-10030100Lumenis Ltd. · Powered Laser Surgical Instrument532 reports
- Flexiva M0068403910Boston Scientific Corporation · Powered laser surgical instrument376 reports
- Visualase 9735542Medtronic Navigation, Inc. · Powered laser surgical instrument1 recall2 deaths311 reports
- SOLTIVE TFL-SLSGyrus ACMI, LLC · Powered laser surgical instrument6 recalls33 reports
- NeuroBlate® System 20980Monteris Medical Inc · Powered laser surgical instrument7 deaths296 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