(b)(4).Upon completion of the investigation it was noted that the images were taken of the ¿as received¿ valve and are attached.The valve was visually inspected; no defects were noted.The position of the cam when valve was received was 140 mmh2o.The valve was hydrated.The valve was tested for programming with programmer 82-3126 with serial (b)(4) and programmer 82-3190 with serial (b)(4), the valve failed the test, the cam mechanism did not move during the programming process.The valve was flushed, the valve passed the test no occlusion was noted.The valve was leak tested, no leaks noted.The valve was reflux tested.The valve passed the test.The valve was dried.The valve was then pressure tested at a 140 mmh20, the valve passed.The valve was dismantled and was examined under microscope at appropriate magnification: biological debris was found on the cam mechanism.The cam magnets were also controlled.The magnets failed.The magnets polarity was controlled failed all magnets were on (-).Review of the history device records for the valve product code 82-3100 with lot chncg., conformed to the specifications when released to stock on the 17th december 2007.The root cause for the problem could be due to the biological debris found on the cam mechanism as well as the polarization of the magnets, this however could not be determined.The abnormal polarization of the valve was probably caused by an exposition of a too strong magnetic field.Further details in chpv mri testing conducted.Based on the results of this investigation no further action is required.Trends will be monitored for this and similar complaints.At the present time this complaint is closed.
|