|
In the (b)(6), 2023 notification the customer included patient treatment settings and patient photo.Since the event occurred, the customer never filed an official call for a service check, nor any complaint of an adverse event with the service team or complaint receiving unit in the uk.In addition, lumenis customer care sales coordinator has offered recently a service check but has not received any response from the customer.There is no allegation of malfunction, and thus system malfunction is not considered the cause of the adverse event.A lumenis clinical healthcare director concluded: "post an ipl treatment on leg veins, a patient experienced an adverse reaction on the anterior ankle displayed in a picture as an ulceration.As per complainer, the patient would have worn tight garments and boots most likely causing friction to the treated area which might then have altered a proper wound healing.It is unclear how baseline veins looked like and what was the medical history for the patient not making analysis of the condition assessment possible.As per described parameters used, they are (b)(4) higher than manufacturer's recommendations for medium size, medium depth vessels.Now, it is unclear why a large lightguide got used on this part of the body and for this condition (best placement flat to flat more complicated with this size, vessels seem small so no need to cover such a large area).The ae seem to result from both user and patient error.It may likely result to some permanent impairment in form of a scar at the level of ulceration ".According to the information received there was no allegation of a device malfunction.Regarding the clinical evaluation, there were a patient and user errors, the patient would have worn tight garments and boots most likely causing friction to the treated area which might then have altered a proper wound healing.Higher energy was used than manufacturer's recommendations for medium size, medium depth vessels.Also large lightguide got used on this part of the body (leg) and for this condition (best placement flat to flat more complicated with this size, vessels seem small so no need to cover such a large area).These are known risks documented in 1010197_p risk analysis and report for m22 and stellar platform, sections: #18 - wrong operation made by user.#1.2 & #2.2 - wrong preset \ tip \ lightguide chosen.#21 - mistakes and judgement errors.The risks are within the acceptable risks.Finally the hazard severity was rated by the clinical director as serious injury (level 6).Therefore this case was determined as reportable to the fda and also to mhra in uk.Lumenis will be closing this complaint, but will continue to monitor this failure mode; complaint trending will continue to monitor per global complaint handling sop (b)(4) and per post marketing surveillance procedure (b)(4).
|
|
Lumenis received on (b)(6), 2023 an adverse event report on a patient who sustained a burn on her leg with open wound following treatment by stellar device.According to the information received, the event occurred on (b)(6), 2022.Lumenis cannot confirm ever receiving notification of this event at that time.See "complaint description" above for their full notification.
|