Skip to content

TECNIS SIMPLICITY DIB00 (REF DIB00U0145)Recalls & reported problems

Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc. · TECNIS SIMPLICITY TECNIS EYHANCE U 14.5D · Class 3 · Implant

All models of TECNIS SIMPLICITY (112)

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

Adverse event reports
4
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
1
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 4 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 05050474731646), received between Dec 1, 2022 and Aug 27, 2026 — classified as 1 injury, 3 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Break” (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: 1 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: 1 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: 1 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Break2
  • Crack2
  • Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem1
  • Failure to Advance1
  • Material Too Rigid or Stiff1

Patient problems

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions3
  • Visual Impairment1

Recent adverse event reports

The 4 most recent of 4 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryAug 27, 2026Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem

    It was reported that the preloaded monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) was implanted in the patient's right eye. During a postoperative examination, the patient experienced refractive surprise. The lens was explanted during a secondary surgical procedure and replaced with another DIB00 intraocular lens of the same model with a diopter power of +18.5. No incision enlargement, vitrectomy, or sutures were required during the procedure. No additional information was provided.

    Patient problems: Visual Impairment

    MAUDE report 50481141 ↗
  • MalfunctionJan 22, 2025Break; Break

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE PRELOADED INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) HAD A DAMAGED LEADING HAPTIC. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THERE WAS PATIENT CONTACT WITH THE IOL, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REPLACED WITH AN IOL OF THE SAME MODEL AND DIOPTER. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INDICATES THAT THE LEADING HAPTIC WAS DAMAGED UPON INSERTION, BUT THE LENS WAS NOT IMPLANTED. THERE WAS NO INJURY OR FURTHER INTERVENTION REQUIRED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 21209638 ↗
  • MalfunctionDec 22, 2023Break; Crack; Failure to Advance; Break; Crack; Failure to Advance

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT A PRELOADED MONOFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENS (IOL) HAD A ADVANCEMENT ISSUE. THERE WAS NO PATIENT CONTACT. IT WAS ALSO REPORTED THE CARTRIDGE BURST OPEN WHILE TRYING TO INSERT THE LENS. A BACK UP LENS WAS USED. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THERE WAS PATIENT CONTACT OR NOT. THE LENS WAS DISCARDED. NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 18386097 ↗
  • MalfunctionDec 1, 2022Crack; Material Too Rigid or Stiff; Crack; Material Too Rigid or Stiff

    IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE SURGEON WAS TRYING TO TURN THE PLUNGER OF THE PRELOADED DEVICE, BUT IT WAS GIVING RESISTANCE AND THE END OF THE CARTRIDGE SPLIT OPEN. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED REVEALED THAT THE CARTRIDGE CRACKED WHEN THE LENS WAS BEING ADVANCED. THE LENS WAS NOT INSERTED INTO PATIENT'S LEFT EYE, BUT ONLY THE CARTRIDGE TIP MADE CONTACT WITH THE EYE. THERE WAS NO PATIENT INJURY AND NO OTHER INTERVENTION WAS REQUIRED. NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 15900682 ↗

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