|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 shuntsystem (#fx603t) was implanted during a procedure.According to the complainant, the shuntassistant (part of #fx603t) caused an underdrainage.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2024.The complainant device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.The incident was reported to the manufacturer late on november 13, 2024.
|
|
Investigation: visual inspection: during the investigation, no significant deformations or damage of the valves was permeability test: a permeability test has indicated that the shuntassistant 2.0 is permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of blockage, the opening pressure is measured using a miethke computer controlled testing apparatus which simulates a cerebrospinal fluid flow.The valve is tested in both the horizontal as well as the vertical positions.The results show that the shuntassistant 2.0 is operating within the accepted tolerance in the horizontal position, but not within the specified tolerances in the vertical position.An accelerated outflow could be determined.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valve, no deposits were found.Results: please note that due to the late return of explants for examination, we may not be able to provide meaningful examination results.Based on our test results, we can determine an accelerated outflow in the vertical position.The other parts of the original shunt system fx603t (progav 2.0, control reservoir) were not sent in for examination.Opening the valve allows a view of a significant part of the interior.In this part we could not detect organic deposits, that could explain the malfunction of the shunt.Nevertheless, there are areas which evade the visual inspection.In these parts, it is also possible to have organic deposits which can influence the function of the shunt.Organic material in the csf can temporarily influence the function and are known side effects in hydrocephalus therapy.In addition to the regular testing we performed a supplemental investigation with the shuntassistant 2.0.In this test, a solution was used to decompose possible organic deposits in the shunt.After decomposing possible organic deposits, we tested the shuntassistant 2.0 again with the computer test bench.The opening pressure of valve in the vertical position was within the specification.Consequently, we conclude there were organic deposits in the valve, which affected the function.Therefore, a defect of the product can be excluded.No further actions are required as a result of the complaint.
|