Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026

Spatio-Temporal In Vivo Imaging of Ocular Drug Delivery Systems using Fiberoptic Confocal Laser Microendoscopy
Published on: September 27, 2021
Preloaded vs manually loaded intraocular lens delivery failure modes: analysis of U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Idan Hecht1, Raimo Tuuminen, Piotr Kanclerz
1From the Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Hecht, Sella); Helsinki Retina Research Group, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (Hecht, Tuuminen, Kanclerz); Department of Ophthalmology, Kymenlaakso Central Hospital, Kotka, Finland (Tuuminen); Hygeia Clinic, Gdańsk, Poland (Kanclerz).
Purpose:
To compare reported intraoperative failure-mode profiles between preloaded and manually loaded intraocular lens (IOL) delivery systems using U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) device reports.
Setting:
FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, United States.
Design:
Retrospective cross-sectional study.
Methods:
MAUDE reports from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2025, were reviewed. Reports describing intraoperative IOL loading, delivery, or positioning issues were included when injector type was specified. Structured MAUDE fields served as the primary data source, and free-text narratives were analyzed using automated natural language processing to supplement classification when consistent with structured fields. Comparisons were performed using within-group proportions, and multivariate logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) controlling for report year, manufacturer, lens platform, and reporting entity.
Results:
Of 57 435 FDA device reports, 14 460 intraoperative reports met inclusion criteria: 10 567 (73.1%) involved preloaded systems and 3893 (26.9%) manually loaded systems. Manually loaded systems showed higher reporting of IOL damage (66.0% vs 45.4%; aOR 3.06, 95% CI 2.78-3.37; P < .001) and loading issues (aOR 5.53, 95% CI 3.99-7.66; P < .001). Preloaded systems showed higher reporting of delivery failures (40.5% vs 21.8%; aOR 3.91, 95% CI 3.51-4.35; P < .001), lens positioning issues (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.62; P = .041), and material or optics abnormalities (aOR 3.53, 95% CI 1.96-6.35; P < .001).
Conclusions:
Preloaded and manually loaded IOL delivery systems demonstrated distinct failure-mode profiles within FDA device reports. These findings characterized reporting patterns rather than population-level risk and may inform device design and postmarket surveillance priorities.
Related Concept Videos
Ophthalmic Drug Delivery Systems
Intrauterine Drug Delivery Systems
Modified-Release Drug Delivery Systems: Rate-Programmed I
Modified-Release Drug Delivery Systems: Rate-Programmed II
Oral Drug Delivery Systems: Delayed-Release Systems
Modified-Release Drug Delivery Systems: Influencing Factors

