|
It was reported that a shuntassistant 2.0 (part # fv105t) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2022.According to the complainant, the shunt system was believed to be operated in underdrainage.The patient underwent a revision procedure performed on (b)(6) 2022.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: 180 centimeters (cm), weight: 75 kilograms (kg).Gender: male.
|
|
Investigation: visual inspection: no significant deformations or damage of the valve were detected during the visual inspection.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve 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 results show that the valve is not operating within the acceptable tolerance in the vertical position.The test shows an accelerated outflow in the shuntassistant 2.0.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valve, deposits were found in shuntassistant 2.0 results: based on our investigation, we can determine that there was an accelerated outflow in the valve at the time of the 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.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 regulatory actions are required from our point of view.
|