| Model Number |
FV274T |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Mechanical Problem (1384)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hydrocephalus (3272)
|
| Date of Event |
10/06/2017
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
According to the complainant a paedigav had a malfunction preoperatively.The valve was scheduled for implantation on (b)(6) 2017; it was tested and found to be "defective".It was not implanted and was returned to the manufacturer.Further details were not provided.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: (description incoming product condition) the product was returned to us dry in a plastic container (not submersed as recommended).Results: it should be noted that the product was received dry.The investigation of dry items is not significant due to the affect dry deposits of liquor and blood can have on product performance.In spite of this, we have investigated the valve to the best of our abilities.First we performed a visual inspection.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next we tested the permeability.The valve was shown to have a blockage.Then we carried out a computer controlled simulated flow test.Due to the non-permeability of the valve, a computer controlled test was not possible to further investigate over/under drainage.Finally we have dismantled the valve.There were no visible deposits observed inside the valve.Based on our investigation, we could not detect any deposits inside the valve.We assume that dried, invisible deposits may have impaired the function of the valve 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 (b)(4).No further actions required.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This complaint was reopened in reference to (b)(4).Investigation: (description incoming product condition) the product was returned to us dry in a plastic container (not submersed as recommended).Results: it should be noted that the product was received dry.The investigation of dry items is not significant due to the affect dry deposits of liquor and blood can have on product performance.In spite of this, we have investigated the valve to the best of our abilities.First we performed a visual inspection.No significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Next we tested the permeability.The valve was shown to have a blockage.Then we carried out a computer controlled simulated flow test.Due to the non-permeability of the valve, a computer controlled test was not possible to further investigate over/under drainage.Finally we have dismantled the valve.There were no visible deposits observed inside the valve.Based on our investigation, we could not detect any deposits inside the valve.We assume that dried, invisible deposits may have impaired the function of the valve 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 (b)(4).No further actions required.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
According to the complainant a paedigav had a malfunction preoperatively.The valve was scheduled for implantation on (b)(6) 2017; it was tested and found to be "defective".It was not implanted and was returned to the manufacturer.Further details were not provided.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|