|
Investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or damage of the valves were detected during the visual inspection in the control reservoir are visible deposits/blood.Permeability test: a permeability test has indicated that the progav 2.0 shunt system is permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of under-drainage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The valves are tested in both the horizontal as well as the vertical positions.During the test bench measurement, a blockage of the progav 2.0 valve appeared.Thus, testing was no longer applicable.The results show that the shunt assistant 2.0 operates within the accepted tolerance in the vertical position.Adjustment test: the progav 2.0 was tested and is not adjustable throughout the normal range.Klick force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function is operational; however, the braking force cannot be measured due to the non-adjustability of the valve.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valves, significant deposits were found in both valves.Results: we would like to point out to you in advance that the permeability test has already been performed after the revision on clinic part.We are assuming that the deposits detected within the valves have caused the functional impairment.Deposits caused by natural substances in the cerebrospinal fluid, such as protein, blood or tissue particles, are among the known and unavoidable risks and side effects of hydrocephalus therapy.Small amounts of non-visible deposits/proteins might compromise the integrity of the valve.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 gmbh & co.Kg.No further regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|
|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 shunt system (part # (b)(4)) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2020.According to the complainant, the shunt system was believed to be operated in underdrainage and difficult to adjust.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: 76 centimeters (cm) weight: (b)(6) (kg), gender: female.
|