|
According to the complainant a shunt assistant was suspected to have a blockage.The patient underwent an implant procedure on (b)(6) /2021.The procedure was a lateral ventricular peritoneal shunt placement.Due to the blockage, the shunt needed to be adjusted.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.Age: (b)(6), height: unknown, weight: unknown, gender: male.Preoperative diagnosis: severe craniocerebral injury, due to car accident.(is the same patient as #(b)(6)).
|
|
Same patient: medwatch#3004721439-2021-00235.Investigation: visual inspection: the following observations were made during the visual inspection: -particles in the delivery liquid, -deposits on the product.Permeability test: the test showed that the shuntassistant is non-permeable.Computer control test: the computer controlled test is not applicable due the detected blockage in section permeability test.Internal inspection of product: in order to verify whether the investigated valve was compromised by the known risks of hydrocephalus therapy, e.G.By a build-up of natural substances (protein, blood, or tissue particles) in the cerebrospinal fluid, we have dismantled the valve.After dismantling of the valve, slightly deposits were found in shuntassistant.Results: based on our investigation results, we can identify a "blockage" in the valve.We are assuming that the deposits detected within the valve have caused the functional impairment.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.Even small amounts of non-visible deposits/proteins might 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.From our point of view, no further regulatory actions are required.
|