The device history records (dhr) for the device was reviewed.The associated device was released based on company acceptance criteria.Logfile review for the day of treatment shows all laser system functions were within specifications for the respective treatment.The corresponding treatment was performed without interruption.No abnormalities or deviations can be detected in the logfiles.Looking at the treatment report and the postoperative topography with its resulting astigmatism, the laser did what has been entered by the user.The central steepening is a result of the high amount of coma that has been ablated in the periphery.Knowing that this cornea had a keratoconus before the treatment, we can usually not predict any outcomes in refraction and behavior of the tissue itself.Afterwards a crosslinking has been performed to stabilize the cornea, which also might have had an influence on the biomechanics and therefore the unexpected outcome of the sphere.The treatment report shows that only the higher order aberrations have been treated, which fits to the refractive outcome of the astigmatism, that remained nearly the same.No technical root cause was identified as the product was found to be within specifications.The most possible root cause is user handling.Patients with diagnosis of keratoconus or any clinical pictures suggestive to keratoconus are contraindicated.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|