|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or other abnormalities of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve has a blockage.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of under - drainage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The valve is tested in both the horizontal as well as the vertical positions.Because the valve is not permeable, a computer controlled test is not possible.Result: first, we performed a visual inspection of the shunt assistant.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next, we tested the permeability of the valve.The valve was shown to have a blockage.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.Inside the valve we have found a small amount of build-up of substances (likely protein).Based on our investigation, we are unable to substantiate the claim of occlusion.At the time of our investigation, the valve was shown to be permeable.However, it is possible that the deposits observed inside the valve could have caused the malfunction in the past.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hg-therapy by shunt implants.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke gmbh & co.Kg.No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|