|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 (part # fx417t) and (3) prosa (part # fv701t) (ref.Associated mdr id 3004721439-2021-00084, 3004721439-2021-00085, and 3004721439-2021-00086 were implanted during a procedure performed in 2018.According to the complainant, a blockage was suspected.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2021 and had the progav 2.0, the (3) prosa valves, as well as a sensor reservoir (part # fv912x; this device, nor similar product, marketed in usa) removed.The complaint devices were returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.No patient information were submitted.Reference associated mdr id 3004721439-2021-00084, 3004721439-2021-00085, and 3004721439-2021-00086.
|
|
Reference associated mdr id 3004721439-2021-00083, and 3004721439-2021-00084, and 3004721439-2021-00085, and 3004721439-2021-00086 investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve is permeable.Adjustment test;: the progav 2.0 was tested and is adjustable to all specified pressures.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function is fully operational and the braking force is within the given tolerances.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of blockage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The results show that the valve operates within the accepted tolerance in both positions.Result : first, we performed a visual inspection of the progav 2.0.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next, we tested the permeability, adjustability, and opening pressure of the valve, as well as the brake functionality and brake force.The valve operates as expected and met all specifications.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.There were no visible deposits observed inside the valve.Based on our investigation, we are unable to substantiate the claim of occlusion.At the time of our investigation, the valve was shown to be permeable.At the time of the examination, it is not clear to us how the functional impairment mentioned occurred.Deposits due to natural substances in the csf, such as protein, blood or tissue particles, are among the known and unavoidable risks and side effects of hydrocephalus therapy.Even small amounts of protein can compromise the integrity of the valve.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke gmbh & co.Kg.No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|