| Model Number |
FX467T |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Infusion or Flow Problem (2964)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hydrocephalus (3272)
|
| Date of Event |
12/09/2021
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 (part # fx467t) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2021.According to the complainant, the shunt system was believed to be operated in underdrainage.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2021.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.Age: (b)(6), height: (b)(6), weight: (b)(6), gender: male.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturing and quality control data: the progav® 2.0 was manufactured by a qualified employee in june 2020.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The progav® 2.0 has a normal pressure range of 0 to 20 cmh2o.The valve was inspected as article fx467t.All parameters have been inspected and approved during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as meeting specifications.Visual inspection: thick bloody deposits on the product and tissue buildup on the catheter, but no damages were detected.Permeability test: a permeability test has indicated that the valve has a blockage.Adjustment test: the progav® 2.0 was tested and is adjustable to all specified pressures.Klick force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function is fully operational and the braking force is within the given tolerances.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valve, clearly deposits were found in progav® 2.0.Result: based on our investigation, we confirm that the valve shows a blockage of liquid at the time of our investigation.This is likely due to the deposits observed inside the valves.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hc-therapy by shunt implants.A defect at the time of release was able to be excluded.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke (b)(4).No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Manufacturing and quality control data: the progav® 2.0 was manufactured by a qualified employee in june 2020.Deviations during assembly did not occur.The valve was sterilized by miethke and released for shipment after final inspection.The progav® 2.0 has a normal pressure range of 0 to 20 cmh2o.The valve was inspected as article fx467t.All parameters have been inspected and approved during the manufacturing process.All parameters have been assessed as meeting specifications.Visual inspection: thick bloody deposits on the product and tissue buildup on the catheter, but no damages were detected.Permeability test: a permeability test has indicated that the valve has a blockage.Adjustment test: the progav® 2.0 was tested and is adjustable to all specified pressures.Klick force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function is fully operational and the braking force is within the given tolerances.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valve, clearly deposits were found in progav® 2.0.Result: based on our investigation, we confirm that the valve shows a blockage of liquid at the time of our investigation.This is likely due to the deposits observed inside the valves.As described in scientific literature, the problem encountered is one of the known, inevitable risks of hc-therapy by shunt implants.A defect at the time of release was able to be excluded.The valve met all specifications of the final inspection when released from christoph miethke (b)(4).No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 (part # fx467t) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2021.According to the complainant, the shunt system was believed to be operated in underdrainage.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2021.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.Age: (b)(6), height: (b)(6), weight: (b)(6), gender: male.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|