|
Clinical evaluation determined the reported injury was a transient first-degree burn, consistent with a known ipl treatment-related adverse reaction, that is expected to resolve without permanent impairment; although the event does not meet the definition of a serious injury under 21 cfr part 803, it is being reported in good faith.The returned handpiece was evaluated (by our importer).Energy output was within specification.During service evaluation, a cooling component malfunction was identified and corrected.Post-repair testing confirmed the device met manufacturer specifications.Review of the available information indicated use of the dye vl applicator for treatment of a pigmented lesion and treatment parameters that may not have been adequately adjusted based on patient response.Based on the available evidence, the most probable cause of the event was user-related, including treatment parameter selection and/or treatment technique.A causal relationship between the identified cooling component malfunction and the reported injury could not be established.
|