|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: (description incoming product condition).The shunt system was dry via the provided returnkit (not submerged, as suggested).Result: first we performed a visual inspection of the valve.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next we tested the permeability, adjustability, opening pressure, and brake functionality and brake force.The valve was permeable.First the valve could only be adjusted in the pressure ranges of 10-20 cmh2o.In the ranges from 0-9 cmh2o, it was not adjustable.After measuring braking force/function, the valve could be adjusted to all pressure stage ranges without any problems.We assume that while testing the brake, and stuck deposits were loosened.The brake is fully functional and the braking force is within given tolerances.The first measurement of the opening pressure in the horizontal body position has shown that the valve is outside the permissable tolerance.The valve tends to underdrain.The measured values of the second measurement were still outside tolerance, but an improvement in the values could be observed.Presumably further testing would lead to continued improvement of the values, since the distilled water would flush any deposits inside the valve out of it.Finally, we dismantled the valve.Inside the valve we have found a small build-up of substances (likely protein).Based on our investigation, we confirm the presence of deposits in the valve at the time of our investigation, which could have caused the malfunction.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hc-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 miehtke gmbh & co.Kg.No further actions required.
|