| Model Number |
AG607401A |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Use of Device Problem (1670); Insufficient Information (3190)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Erythema (1840); Granuloma (1876); Skin Inflammation/ Irritation (4545)
|
| Date of Event |
01/03/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Initially, the clinic reported of patient's condition 4 months post last treatment.At this point it was decided to continue to monitor patient's healing progress as gradual improvement was anticipated.Seven months post last treatment, follow up information was received showing lack of reparative course for patient's condition, and hence it was decided to report the incident due to its longevity.Investigation is on-going.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Papular tip footprints with pie on décolleté 7 months post morpheus8 treatment.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Papular tip footprints with pie on décolleté 7 months post morpheus8 treatment.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Initially, the clinic reported of patient's condition 4 months post last treatment.At this point it was decided to continue to monitor patient's healing progress as gradual improvement was anticipated.Seven months post last treatment, follow up information was received showing lack of reparative course for patient's condition, and hence it was decided to report the incident due to its longevity.Investigation is on-going.11-dec-2024: follow up report is submitted with corrections and investigation results.D5 - operator corrected to unknown.H6- health effect clinical code corrected.Investigation results: technical inspection of the device did not reveal any issues.Investigation attributed the root-cause to multiple user errors.Firstly, the treated area (décolleté) lacked any indication for morpheus8 treatment.Using numbing cream with high percentage of anesthetics could have predisposed the skin to initial intense inflammatory response.Treatment settings were not congruent with the recommended protocol, performed at incorrect depths at high energy on a bony area, adding to the inflammatory response.Further, the operator performed the last treatment on the skin that hasn't healed yet and still presented with inflammatory reaction per provider.The operator disregarded patient's medical background (skin related autoimmune disease), although contraindicated per ifu and most probably this further contributed to the inflammatory response.To summarize, multiple user errors led to the prolonged inflammatory state and the pie.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|