|
Lumenis investigated the reported event by contacting the user facility directly for additional information, there was no response from user (neither payment or confirmation of dates) for the service offer.The user facility does not have a lumenis service contract, a review of service history for the device shows that the device didn't have a pm since the installation at 2017.It is unknown if the system had a pm service by a 3rd party and whether that might be the cause of this alleged malfunction.A review of the subject device dhr confirmed that the subject device was manufactured and tested according to relevant procedures, tested before release, and shipped according to manufacturer's specifications.The system was manufactured on 24-oct-2017 and installed at the customers site on 07-12-2017.A review of system risk files ((b)(4) rev n) revealed risk #10.1 " device malfunction" which have the potential to lead to adverse effects of alternative treatments".The risk likelihood has been quantified and found to be remote, and the risk has been characterized and documented as acceptable within full risk assessment.In this case, the procedure was successfully completed with an alternate device, although the device malfunction did not cause or contribute to any change in the patient's condition, it is uncertain if the user facility had to use an alternate device as intervention to prevent serious injury.In an abundance of caution, lumenis is reporting this malfunction.Lumenis technical professional indicated that according to the description there may have been an alignment issue or optics issue.Not having a pm since the installation may lead to optics deterioration over the time.Lumenis is closing this complaint but will continue to monitor this failure mode; complaint trending will continue to monitor per global complaint handling sop (doc no.(b)(4)) and per post marketing surveillance procedure (doc no.(b)(4)).
|
|
A user facility reported that during a procedure in which a lumenis acupulse 40w co2 laser system was to be utilized, the aiming beam was scattered and not in focus.After a twenty (20) minutes delay the procedure was successfully completed with an alternate method.No report of injury was received, and the device malfunction did not cause or contribute to any change in the patient's condition.
|