|
Investigation: visual inspection: visual inspection showed the following: slight deposits in the prechamber.Permeability test: a permeability test has indicated that the shuntassistant 2.0 has a blockage and the progav 2.0 and the prechamber 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.Because the shuntassistant 2.0 is not permeable, a computer controlled test is not possible.The results show that the progav 2.0 is operating within the accepted tolerance in the horizontal position.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: finally, we have dismantled the valves.Inside both valves we have found slight build-up of substances (likely protein).Based on our test results, we can detect a blockage at the shunt system at the time of our examination.This is likely due to the deposits observed inside the valves.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 (b)(4).No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|