|
Investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or other abnormalities of the valve were detected.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve is permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of over-drainage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The valve is tested in both the horizontal as well as the vertical positions.The results show that the valve is not operating within the acceptable tolerance in either position.Results: first, we performed a visual inspection of the gav 2.0.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next, we tested the permeability of the valve.The valve was shown to be permeable.Then we carried out a computer controlled simulated flow test.The measured opening pressure was not within the accepted tolerance range for either position.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.There were no visible deposits observed inside the valve.Based on our inspection results, we can determine accelerated drainage at the time of our inspection on the valve.Even if no visible deposits were detected, it is possible that non-visible deposits inside the valve may have affected the functionality of the product.Deposits caused by substances naturally present 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 (b)(4).No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|