Skip to content

TECNIS IOL ZCB00 (REF ZCB0000090)Recalls & reported problems

Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · TECNIS 1-PC CLEAR MONO 6.0MM 9.0D · Class 3 · Implant

All models of TECNIS IOL (1344)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
6
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 6 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 05050474531499), received between Mar 29, 2017 and Dec 2, 2024 — classified as 6 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material” (2 reports).

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

  • Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material2
  • Break1
  • Crack1
  • Difficult or Delayed Positioning1
  • Material Fragmentation1
  • Torn Material1

Patient problems

  • No Consequences Or Impact To Patient3
  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions2
  • No Information1

Recent adverse event reports

The 6 most recent of 6 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionDec 2, 2024Break; Break

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE HAPTIC OF MONOFOCAL NON-PRELOADED INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) WAS BROKEN AFTER IMPLANTATION. IOL WAS FULLY INSERTED INTO PATIENT'S EYE. THERE WAS NO INCISION ENLARGEMENT. NO VITRECTOMY WAS REQUIRED. DIRECTIONS FOR USE WERE FOLLOWED. AS PER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE REMOVED IOL WAS REPLACED WITH SAME MODEL IOL. THERE WAS NO ANY PATIENT INJURY. PATIENT HAS RECOVERED. THE REMOVED IOL WAS DISCARDED. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 20828265 ↗
  • MalfunctionSep 24, 2021Material Fragmentation; Material Fragmentation

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) WAS IMPLANTED INTO PATIENT'S OPERATIVE EYE; HOWEVER, LENS WAS REMOVED DURING THE SAME SURGERY DUE TO A MISSING HAPTIC. NO FURTHER COMPLICATIONS OCCURRED AND NO OTHER INTERVENTIONS WERE REQUIRED. ANOTHER LENS OF SAME MODEL WAS USED AS THE REPLACEMENT. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 12530599 ↗
  • MalfunctionApr 19, 2018Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material; Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SURGEON THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A SPECK ON THE INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) AFTER INJECTION INTO THE PATIENT'S EYE. REPORTEDLY, THE LENS WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED. NO INCISION ENLARGEMENT, NO SUTURE WAS USED AND NO PATIENT INJURY WAS REPORTED. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 7445911 ↗
  • MalfunctionSep 26, 2017Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material; Device Contamination with Chemical or Other Material

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT AFTER AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) WAS INSERTED INTO THE PATIENT'S EYE, A PIECE OF PLASTIC WAS NOTICED ON TOP OF THE LENS. REPORTEDLY, THE PLASTIC WAS REMOVED FROM THE EYE. THE ACCOUNT COMMENTED THAT THEY DON'T KNOW IF THE PLASTIC WAS COMING FROM THE LENS OR THE UNFOLDER (CARTRIDGE). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED AND IT WAS LEARNT THAT THE LENS WAS LEFT IN THE PATIENT'S EYE. NO INCISION ENLARGEMENT, NO VITRECTOMY WAS PERFORMED AND NO SUTURES WERE USED. THE PATIENT WAS REPORTED BEING FINE. THIS MDR IS TO RECORD THE LENS. A SEPARATE REPORT WILL BE FILED FOR THE CARTRIDGE.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 6894752 ↗
  • MalfunctionSep 1, 2017Difficult or Delayed Positioning; Difficult or Delayed Positioning

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) WAS STUCK IN THE CARTRIDGE AS IT WAS BEING INSERTED INTO THE EYE. THERE WAS PATIENT CONTACT. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO ABBOTT MEDICAL OPTICS.

    Patient problems: No Information

    MAUDE report 6839575 ↗
  • MalfunctionMar 29, 2017Crack; Torn Material; Crack; Torn Material

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT AN INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL), MODEL ZCB00, WAS CRACKED/TORN AND IT HAD A TORN HAPTIC. PATIENT CONTACT WAS REPORTED. THE LENS WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ANOTHER ZCB00 LENS, DIOPTER SIZE NOT PROVIDED. NO INCISION ENLARGEMENT, NO SUTURE USED AND NO PATIENT INJURY WAS REPORTED. REPORTEDLY THE LENS WAS DISCARDED BY THE CUSTOMER. NO FURTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 6444573 ↗

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