The Alcon LADARVision excimer laser does not appear to have any inherent design problems and hundreds of thousands of patients have had satisfactory outcomes. In fact, even those who alledged a problem acknowledged that no patients were harmed.

Glenn Hagele also issued a full press release defending dangerous Alcon Ladarvision lasers, and was proven wrong by Fox News.  Not only did Fox News show that these lasers are dangerous and wildly unpredictable, but the FDA has also described serious problems with the laser involving "Laser not firing", "Translator malfunction", "Loss of tracking", and "Not able to track" as documented in a warning letter to Alcon. 

WARNING LETTER

FLA-05-27

April 15, 2005

Mr. Gary A . Woodrell
Vice President
Refractive Manufacturing Operations
Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
2501 Discovery Drive
Orlando, Florida 32826

Dear Mr. Woodrell :

During an inspection of your establishment located in Orlando, Florida on January 10 - 18, 2005, our Investigator determined that your firm manufactures the LADARVision 4000 Excimer Laser System. An excimer laser is a device as defined by Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), [21 U.S.C. 321(h)].

The above-stated inspection revealed that this device is adulterated under section 501(h) of the Act, in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, the manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformance with the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements for medical devices which are set forth in the Quality System regulation, as specified in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. Significant deviations include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Failure to review and evaluate all complaints to determine whether an investigation is necessary. When no investigation is made, the manufacturer shall maintain a record that includes the reason no investigation was made and the name of the individual responsible for the decision not to investigate as required by 21 CFR 820.198(b). (FDA 483, Item #1).

Data downloaded from LADARVision systems currently in use in the U.S. showed significant differences in the retreatment requirements between patients treated prior to 15 minutes after calibration of the device as opposed to patients who were treated after 15 minutes following calibration of the device. Another table was provided that used the points of < 30 minutes from calibration to treatment and > 30 minutes or more from calibration to treatment.

A patient whose surgical procedure is initiated after 30 minutes has a 30% greater risk of retreatment than does the patient whose treatment commences prior to 30 minutes after calibration. Beam drift occurs if too much time passes between calibration and treatment, with possible translation or rotation of the beam.

Your response to this data has been inadequate. There is a note to a warning to the device user manual, which states, "WARNING: System calibration must be done between patients and within 15 minutes of surgery, failure to perform calibration in the time frame indicated may result in improper orientation of the ablation. " However, there was no reason provided to explain the use of these times. Moreover, the note to warning is not by itself sufficient to address the seriousness of this problem . (FDA 483, Item #1)

2. Failure to review, evaluate, and investigate any complaint involving the possible failure of a device, labeling, or packaging to meet any of its specifications, unless such investigation has already been performed for a similar complaint and another investigation is necessary as required by 21 CFR 820.198(c). Complaints received from January 1, 2002, through January 10, 2005, revealed the most common complaint codes as follows:

• Class code - 801: Laser not firing,

• Class code T 833: Translator malfunction,

• Class code - 802A: Loss of tracking, and

• Class code - 802B: Not able to track

Complaint records associated with these complaint class codes are not adequately reviewed, evaluated, and investigated to determine the root-cause of the system and/or sub-assembly component malfunction (FDA 483, Item #2).

Specific complaints reviewed during the inspection revealed the following:

a . Complaint Record RS030392 received on April 14, 2003, involving the LADARVision® 4000 Beta, lot number L4B1023S references the laser stopped firing during surgery at 92% complete. The Field Service Engineer (FSE) found arcing in the laser chassis assembly. The FSE adjusted components to prevent future arcing. The complaint record does not document and confirm that an investigation was conducted to determine the root cause of the reported problem. The record also fails to document the justification for not conducting an investigation and is not signed and dated by responsible personnel.

b. Complaint Record RS041106 received on August 23, 2004, involving LADARVision® 4000 Beta, lot number L4B1023S references the laser not firing. An FSE replaced the laser control electronics that failed. The replaced component was evaluated and verified the failure was caused by a broken connector. The record does not document and confirm that an investigation was conducted to determine the root cause of the broken connector. The record also fails to document the justification for not conducting an investigation and is not signed and dated by responsible personnel.

c. Complaint Record RS041047 received on August 11, 2004, involving a refurbished LADARVision® 4000 Beta, lot number L4B1090S referencing noise from the laser with a system failed error message. A similar complaint, RS030392 referenced a malfunctioning translator, which was replaced because of faulty/defective bearings. The complaint was classified as complaint class 823- Noise Coming from system. The complaint was more appropriately determined a translator malfunction, which is complaint class 833. The malfunction causes the laser to stop operating or firing resulting in surgery being terminated, causing under correction, which is not considered by your firm to be an injury.

d. Complaint Record RS030539 received on May 16, 2003, involving LADARVision® 4000 Beta, lot number L4B1022S referencing loss of tracking during surgery. Surgery was stopped at 57% complete. The FSE balanced the infrared pulse and changed the DSP gains. The record does not document an investigation that was conducted to determine the root-cause of the report to conduct an investigation into the reported malfunction.

e. Complaint Record RS031262 received on November 14, 2003, involving LADARVision® 4000 Beta, lot number L4B1022S references a laser unable to track. The FSE confirmed the failure mode and replaced the zoom motor. The Manufacturing Engineer (ME) confirmed that the motor performed erratically when operating under a torque and will not reverse direction when prompted by software. A similar complaint FS030539 (noted above) does not document that an investigation was conducted to determine the root cause for the zoom motor failure or the justification for not conducting an investigation into the malfunction.

3. Failure to promptly review, evaluate, and investigate any complaint that represents an event which must be reported to FDA under 21 CFR part 803 by a designated individual(s) and shall be maintained in a separate portion of the complaint files otherwise clearly identified as required by 21 CFR 820.198(d) and 803..50(b)(2).. (FDA 483, Item #3). Complaint .Record RS041447 received on November 5, 2004, (MDR 1061857-2004-00011) involving the LADARVision® 4000, lot number L4N1636S referenced the report of a poor clinical outcome. The primary custom-cornea, lasik procedure conducted on June 4, 2004, resulted in a two line loss of Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), 20/20 at pre-op and 20/30 at the four month post-op visit. A retreatment was conducted on October 29, 2004, resulting in an additional one line loss of BCVA, which was 20/30 at four months after post-op and 20/40 at one week after the retreatment post-op visit. No review, evaluation, and investigation were conducted of the primary custom-cornea lasik procedure on June 4, 2004. The retreatment procedure was reviewed, evaluated, and investigated, which is not covered under the system's labeling including the collection of data such as Operative Summary, LadarWave printouts, and Operative Reports. The complaint was closed December 13, 2004. No review, evaluation or investigation was conducted of the primary custom-cornea, lasik procedure which occurred on June 4, 2004.

4. Failure to establish and maintain procedures that define the responsibility for review and the authority for the disposition of nonconforming product as required by 21 CFR 820.90(b)(1). (FDA 483, Item #4). Your own procedures, specifically, SOP 7501-00.38, Field Returns, and SOP 7003-0909, Evaluation of Non-Conforming Parts Returned from Field Service, are not followed:

a. Complaint Record RS040448 - Per the referenced SOPs all parts replaced in the field are to be returned for evaluation. An evaluation of malfunctioning translators was not conducted as required and the service activity was considered routine maintenance instead of being assessed as a complaint.

b. Complaint Record RS040031 - Per the referenced SOPs gas filters were not returned for evaluation and an evaluation was not performed. This report was evaluated by Product Safety (PS) and classified as a "Malfunction". Personnel experienced headache, dry tight throat, and nausea resulting in an emergency room (ER) visit.

c. Complaint Record RS031155 - A FSE found a lead washer was unevenly crimped, which he replaced. The part was not returned and an evaluation was not performed. A MDR was evaluated by your PS team and classified as "Other" without explanation. Personnel experienced vomiting and nausea resulting in an ER visit.

The above-stated inspection also revealed that your device is misbranded under section 502(t)(2) of the Act, in that your firm failed or refused to furnish any material or information required by or under section 519 respecting the device. Specifically, your firm failed to report within 30 days whenever the manufacturer receives or otherwise becomes aware of information, from any sources, that reasonably suggests that a device marketed by the manufacturer has caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, as required by 21 CFR 803.50(a)(1).

The following complaints referencing serious injuries where not submitted within 30 days to FDA as required:

a. Complaint Record RS041329
b. Complaint Record RS030632

Your firm also failed to investigate adverse event reports and to evaluate the cause of the reported event as required by 21 CFR 803.50(b)(2). The following adverse event reports have not been adequately investigated as required:

a. Complaint Record RS030392
b. Complaint Record RS041106
c. Complaint Record RS041047
d. Complaint Record RS031262
e. Complaint Record RS030355
f.. Complaint Record RS031146
g. Complaint Record RS030632
h. Complaint Record RS031257

This letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of violations at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), issued at the closeout of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm's manufacturing and quality assurance systems. You should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and to bring your products into compliance.

We have reviewed your response, dated February 3, 2005. We acknowledge that you have proposed to improve your complaint handling procedure. We would appreciate receiving the periodic reports that you have promised. Nevertheless, your response to the violations discussed above is inadequate because our review of the data shows that reviews, evaluations, and corrective actions were not fully assessed. Also your own procedures were not followed and misinterpretations were made as to the status of complaints that were reported and the conclusions that were drawn, which affected the corrective actions that were required. You should address each and every observation when responding to this letter. Your response has been made part of the Florida District file.

Additionally, no premarket submissions for Class III devices to which QS regulation deficiencies are reasonably related will be cleared until the violations have been corrected. Also, no requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments will be approved until the violations related to the subject devices have been corrected. You should take prompt action to correct these deviations. Failure to promptly correct these deviations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the Food and Drug Administration without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and/or civil penalties.

Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days of receipt of this letter, of any steps that you are still in the process of taking to correct the noted violations, including (1) the time frames within which the corrections will be completed, (2) any documentation indicating the corrections have been achieved, and (3) an explanation of each step being taken to identify and make corrections to any underlying systems problems necessary to assure that similar violations will not recur.

Your response should be sent to Timothy J. Couzins, Compliance Officer, Food and Drug Administration, 555 Winderley Place, Suite 200, Maitland, Florida 32751, (407) 475-4728.

Sincerely,

/S/

Emma R . Singleton
Director, Florida District