|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Manufacturing site evaluation: manufacturing and quality control data the valve was manufactured by a qualified employee in september 2014.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The 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 a set presure range of 0, 10, 20 cmh20 were fine.The valve was inspected as article fv410t.All parameters of the valve (opening pressure, reflux, tightness, adjustability, and brake function) have been inspected and signed during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as meeting specification.Before release the progav was pre-adjusted to presure setting 5 cmh20.Device examination: the prgav® valve was returned submersed in an unidentified liquid in the provided returnkit.The progav was set to pressure range 6 cmh20 at the time of receipt.Visual inspection: a visual inspection was performed which revealed no deformations or other abnormalities.However, a measurement of the plane parallelism revealed a slight deformation.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve was permeable with difficulty.Adjustment test: the valve was tested and was not able to be adjusted.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality and braking force tests were not able to be performed as the valve was not able to be adjusted.Result: first, a visual inspection of the valve was performed.No deformations or other abnormalities.However, a measurement of the plane parallelism revealed a slight deformation.Next, the permeability, adjustability, as well as the brake functionally and brake force, of the valve were tested.The valve was permeable with difficulty.The valve was not able to be adjusted so the brake functionality and braking force tests were not able to be performed.Finally, the valve was dismantled.A small build-up of a substance (likely protein) was observed inside the valve.Based on the investigation, the claim of valve not able to be adjusted was able to be substantiated.It is possible that the deposits observed inside the valve may have led to the malfunction.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hydrocephalus (hc)-therapy by shunt implants.Based on the investigation, the claim of mechanical malfunction was not able to be substantiated.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.
|