|
Visual inspection: during the investigation, scratches on the outer housing of the progav 2.0 were determined.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that all components are permeable.Computer controlled test: to investigate the claim of over-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 operates within the accepted tolerance in the horizontal position.The shuntassistant 2.0 does not operate within the specified tolerances in the vertical position.An accelerated outflow of shuntassistant 2.0 could be determined.Adjustment test: the progav 2.0 was tested and is not adjustable.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function operates as expected; however, the breaking force cannot be measured due to the non-adjustability of the valve.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valves, deposits were found in both valves.Results: based on our investigation results, we have determined that the progav 2.0 cannot be adjusted and that the shuntassistant 2.0 has an accelerated outflow.The deposits found in the valves have led to the aforementioned functional impairments.Deposits caused by natural substances in the body, such as protein, blood or tissue particles, are among the known and unavoidable risks and side effects of hydrocephalus therapy.Even small amounts of proteins can impair 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 shuntsystem (#fx643t) was implanted during a procedure performed on (b)(6) 2022.According to the complainant, the shunt system caused an overdrainage and had adjustment difficulties.The system was not implanted parallel to the body axis (see questionnaire) and schowed an over-drainage and adjustment difficulties.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2024.The complainant device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation in the provided returnkit, submerged in liquid.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.
|