|
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 2016.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: no significant deformations or damage were detected during the visual inspection.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve was permeable.Adjustment test: the progav® was tested and was initially difficult to adjust.In the second attempt, it was possible to adjust the valve 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/under-drainage, the opening pressure was measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerobrospinal fluid flow.The first measurement revealed that the valve in the horizontal body position was slightly outside the permissible tolerance.The valve tends to underdrainage.A second test showed improvement of the values.The measured values were within the permissible tolerance.Result: first, a visual inspection of the progav® was performed.No significant deformations or damage to the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next, the permeability, adjustability, as well as the brake functionally and brake force, of the valve were tested.The progav was initially difficult to adjust.However, in the second attempt, it was possible to adjust the valve to all specified pressures.During the first measurement, the valve was slightly outside the permissible tolerance in the horizontal body position.However, a second test showed improvement of the values which were within the permissible tolerance.All other specifications were met.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 a blockage was able to be substantiated.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 therapy (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.
|