|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: visual inspection: a deformation of the outer housing of the progav valve was observed through the visual inspection.The measurement of the plane parallelism could confirm that with a value of -0,0750mm the housing membrane is clearly outside tolerance (0 ± 0.02 mm).Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve is permeable.Adjustment test: the progav® was tested and is adjustable to all specified pressures.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function operates as expected.The breaking force required was not within the given specifications.More force must be applied to release the brake.Result: first, we performed a visual inspection of the progav®.A deformation of the outer housing of the progav® valve was observed through the visual inspection.This deformation was confirmed through a measurement of the plane parallelism.Significant outside pressure, for example by too much force from the prosa® adjustment tool or by a fall or impact to the head of the patient, can compromise the integrity of the valve.Next, we tested the permeability, adjustability, as well as the brake functionality and brake force.The valve is permeable and adjustable to all specified settings.The brake function operates as expected.The breaking force required was not within the given specifications.More force must be applied to release the brake.We suspect, that the brake function was impaired by the deformation of the housing diaphragm.Finally, we have dismantled the valve.Inside the valve we have found a build-up of substances (likely protein).Based on our investigation, we are unable to substantiate the claim of non-adjustability.At the time of our investigation, the valve was able to be adjusted to all specified settings, even though more force was needed.We assume that the integrity of the valve, from the combination of a deformed diaphragm and the deposits inside the valve, has been compromised in the past.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.
|
|
It was reported to miethke that a progav with shuntassistant 20 (part # fv413t) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2009.According to the complainant, the valve was believed to be blocked and not adjustable.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2017.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.Further details were not provided.Patient information: age: (b)(6), weight : (b)(6), height: 113cm.
|