|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Manufacturing site evaluation: manufacturing and quality control data the progav® was manufactured by a qualified employee in may 2015.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The progav® has a normal pressure range of 0 to 20 cmh2o.The shunt system was inspected as article fv441t.All parameters have been inspected and approved during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as meeting specifications.Device examination: the progav® was returned submersed in an unidentified liquid in the provided returnkit.Visual inspection: scratches on the outer housing of the valve were observed through the visual inspection.No significant deformations or damage were detected.The progav® valve housing was subsequently measured and indicated the presence of a deformation.The measured values were slightly out of tolerance.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve was permeable.Adjustment test: the progav® was tested and was adjustable to all specified pressures.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function was fully operational and the braking force was within the given tolerances.Computer controlled test: to investigate over-drainage, the opening pressure was measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerobrospinal fluid flow.The results showed that the valve operated within the accepted tolerance in the horizontal position.Result: first, a visual inspection of the progav® was performed.No significant deformations or damage to the valve were detected during the visual inspection, but a slight deformation was detected through a measurement of the plane parallelity.Next, the permeability, adjustability, as well as the brake functionally and brake force, of the valve were tested.The valve operates as expected and met all specifications.Finally, the valve was dismantled.A build-up of a substance (likely protein) was observed inside the valve.Based on the investigation, the claim of over-drainage was not able to be substantiated.At the time of the investigation, the opening pressure of the valve was within the specified tolerances.However, it is possible that the deposits observed inside the valve could have led to the reported event.Deposits caused by natural substances in the cerebrospinal fluid, such as protein, blood or tissue particles, are among the known and unavoidable risks and side effects of hydrocephalus therapy.Manufacturing defects at the time of release have been excluded.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke gmbh & co.Kg.No further regulatory actions are required.
|