| Model Number |
FX467T |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Infusion or Flow Problem (2964)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hydrocephalus (3272)
|
| Date of Event |
05/17/2017
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Manufacturing site evaluation: manufacturing and quality control data: the progav® 2.0 was manufactured by a qualified employee in june 2015.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The progav® 2.0 has a normal pressure range of 0 to 20 cmh2o.The valve was inspected as article fx467t.All parameters have been inspected and approved during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as meeting specification.Investigative statement: on the basis of juristic requirements, the surgeon must provide a personal request as a step of safeguard.Unfortunately, no consent was received from the surgeon.An official release is missing for the investigation of the product.For this reason, the product was returned for discharge without examination.Result: 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 gmbh & co.Kg.No further regulatory actions are required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported to miethke that a progav 2.0 with control reservoir (part # fx467t) was implanted during a procedure performed on an (b)(6) 2016.According to the complainant, the patient had valve implanted occipitally with a setting of twelve (12).Despite multiple attempts, the valve was not able to be adjusted to eight (8).The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2017.The surgeon felt the location of the original valve, which was directly under an incision and lower on neck with at least 1 centimeter (cm) of muscle between the bone and valve, may have contributed to the difficulty in adjusting the setting of the valve.Reportedly, the surgeon was able to depress the dome of the valve during the surgery and the valve was flowing and seemed to be functioning.The surgeon implanted new valve in a different location on the head.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|