|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: ( description incoming product condition) we received the valve in the return kit.Summary: first, we performed a visual inspection of the valve.A deformation of the outer housing of the valve was observed through the visual inspection.This deformation was confirmed through a measurement of the plant parallelism.The exact cause of the deformation remains unclear.Next, we tested the permeability, adjustability, aw well as the brake functionality and brake force.The valve operates as expected and met all specifications.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.Inside the valve we could not find build-up of substances.Based on our investigation results we are unable to substantiate the clinical claim of non-adjustability.At the time of our investigation the valve was adjustable to all specified pressures.We cannot explain how adjustment problems could occur in the past.We can only assume that the position of the implantation may have been chosen incorrectly due to the anatomical conditions of the patient, or the skin over the valve was too thick, which may have led to difficulties in adjusting the valve.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The valve met all specifications of he final inspection when released from christoph miethke (b)(4).No further actions required.
|