|
Investigation: visual inspection: scratches on the progav 2.0, blood and tissue residues on the inlet spout on the progav 2.0.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that both valves are permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of over/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.The results show that the progav 2.0 is operating within the accepted tolerance in the horizontal position.The shuntassistant is operating not within the specified tolerances in the vertical position.Adjustment test: the progav 2.0 was tested and is not adjustable throughout the normal range.Braking 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.(see section above).Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valves, deposits were found in both valves.Results: for the sake of thoroughness and transparency, we would like to point out that a permeability test and adjustability test was already carried out after the revision at the hospital.Based on our investigation, we confirm that the shunt system shows an increased flow 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.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 # fx414t) was implanted during a procedure performed on an unknown date.According to the complainant, the shunt system was believed to be operated in overdrainage and had adjustment difficulties.The patient underwent a revision procedure performed on an unknown date.The complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.Age: 10 years, height: 165 centimeters (cm), weight: 50 kilograms (kg), gender: male.
|