| Model Number |
FX471T |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Infusion or Flow Problem (2964); Physical Resistance/Sticking (4012)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Hydrocephalus (3272)
|
| Date of Event |
02/20/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Visual inspection: during the investigation, deposits on the device were determined.Permeability test: a permeability test has shown that the valve is 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 valve is tested in the horizontal position.The results show that the valve operates within the accepted tolerances in the horizontal position.Adjustment test: the progav 2.0 was tested and is adjustable to all specified pressures.Braking force and brake function test: the brake functionality test has shown that the brake function is fully operational and the braking force is within the given tolerances.Internal inspection: after dismantling of the valve, deposits were found in progav 2.0.Results: based on our investigation results, we can determine deposits in the progav 2.0.The deposits had no affect to the technical properties at the time of the investigation.The cause of the aforementioned functional impairment is not known to us at the time of the examination.Proteins in the cerebrospinal fluid can influence the function temporarily and are known side effects in hydrocephalus therapy.We can exclude a defect at the time of release.The valve 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a progav 2.0 (#fx471t) was implanted during a procedure performed on an unknown date (reported date of implantation and production date of the used valve do not align).According to the complainant, the shunt system caused an overdrainage and had adjustment difficulties.The patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2025.No patient complications were reported as a result of the revision procedure.The complained device was returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.After receiving the product we discovered that an m.Blue had been explanted as well, of which we were previously unaware.Same event as this case, runs as rm 5488_1 | 400704081 | 3004721439-2025-00101.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|