|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: ( description incoming product condition) the valve was received submersed in an unidentified liquid in the provided returnkit.Result: first we performed a visual inspection of the progav.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.Then we carried out a computer controlled simulated flow test.The measured opening pressure was within the accepted tolerance in both positions.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.There were no visible deposits observed inside the valve.We suspect that possible deposits, which could have been responsible for blockage in the past were flushed out by the computer controlled test.Based on our investigation, we are unable to substantiate the clinical claim of underdrainage.At the time of our investigation, the valve was operating within the specified tolerances.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The shunt system met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke (b)(4).No further actions required.
|