|
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 january 2016.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The progav valve has a nominal pressure rating of 0 to 20 cmws.The valve specifications after closing the valve for 5 ml/h or.50 ml/h flow, for set pressure range 0, 10, 20 cmh2o were fine.The valve was inspected as article fx434t.All parameters (opening pressure, reflux, tightness, adjustability and brake function) have been inspected and signed during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as okay.Before release the progav was pre-adjusted to pressure setting 5 cmh2o.Device examination: the progav® valve was returned in an unidentified liquid.At the time of submission the progav valve was set to pressure range 7 cmh2o.Visual inspection: the visual inspection revealed that the valve has no deformations or other abnormalities.However, the examination of the parallelism, identified a deviation from the 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 expected tolerances.Result: first, a visual inspection of the progav® was performed.No significant deformations or damage to the valve were detected during the visual inspection, however, a 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 met all specifications.As a final examination, a computer controlled test was performed.The valve was found to not be working inside the accepted tolerance.Finally, the valve was dismantled.A small amount of build-up of a substance (likely protein) was observed inside the valve.Based on the investigation, the valve underdrainage was confirmed.This was likely due to the deposits observed inside the valve.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hydrocephalus (hc)-therapy by shunt implants.Manufacturing defects at the time of release have been excluded.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke (b)(4).No further regulatory actions are required.
|