|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2016.According to the complainant, the valve was believed to be underdrainage.The patient underwent a revision procedure.The complainant device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.Patient information: age: (b)(6) years, weight: (b)(6) kg, height: 140, gender: male.
|
|
Investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or damage of the valves were detected during the visual inspection.A slightly calcified catheter and a small cut in the kink protection.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that both valves are permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of under-drainage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The valves are tested in both the horizontal as well as the vertical positions.The results show that the valves operated within the accepted tolerance in both positions.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.Results: first, we performed a visual inspection of the progav 2.0 shunt system.No significant deformations or damage of the valves were detected during the visual inspection.A slightly calcified catheter and a small cut in the kink protection are visible.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 valves.Inside both valves we have found slight build-up of substances (likely protein).Based on our investigation, we are unable to substantiate the clinical claim of under-drainage.At the time of our investigation, the valves were operating within the specified tolerances.However, it is possible that the deposits observed inside the valve could have caused the malfunction in the past.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hc-therapy by shunt implants.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The shunt system 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.
|