|
H.3., h.6.: investigation, including root cause analysis, is in progress.A supplemental mdr will be filed as necessary in accordance with 21 cfr 803.56 when additional reportable information becomes available.The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|
|
Additional information provided in d.9., h.3., h.6., and h.11.A review of the device history record (dhr) traceable to the reported serial number indicates that the product was processed and released according to the product¿s acceptance criteria.A review of the technical service onsite history review showed no abnormalities that could have contributed to this event: the device was successfully verified prior and after the day of event.Most recent onsite visit from field service engineer performed and signed service installation record.The device meets specification as per service installation record.The review of logfile for the day of treatment shows all laser system functions were within specifications.The vacuum check, the energy check and the ablation check were performed successfully without issues.The energy was stable during the whole day.The logfile shows thirty eight successfully performed treatments without interruptions.Due to missing information about the treatment details the related treatment cannot be identified in the logfile.The review of the complete treatment day shows that fifteen beam control checks were performed way before the start of the treatments and not immediately before the treatments.The beam control check correction factors vary strongly through the day of treatment with the lowest correction factor being minus nineteen microns and the highest plus sixty eight microns.The review also shows that during all treatments the suction process was achieved without missed vacuum one or two and re-dockings.The review also shows that all treatments were performed with no or not relevant deviation between planned and performed energy.Throughout the logfiles the error message of error during focus control was shown a total of nine times and the error message of focus control was shown twice.Review of the log files for the treatment day does not show any other relevant warning or error messages.No technical root cause could be identified.The system was working within specification.During an onsite visit by the local field service engineer, the z-scanner was replaced, because of intermittent thin flaps, however within the service record it is stated that the event was neither confirmed nor replicated.Further information and the exchanged scanner were requested but not yet received.No device related issues were identified based on the provided data.The investigation showed several handling related factors, that may contribute to an outcome similar to the reported event.Therefore, the case is coded as "inconclusive - other".The manufacturer internal reference number is: (b)(4).
|