|
Since the valve did not drain during the initial surgery for valve implantation, this case is finally not considered reportable.Code f1903 has been replaced by f1908 as the product has not been explanted as it has not been implanted.Our quality department conducted various analyses on the returned device : visual inspection: the valve was returned quite clean, immersed in water.The valve was set to position p3.Organic residues were observed inside the valve chamber.The preconnected reservoir is deformed, exhibiting an elongated shape rather than a circular one and its internal components had been disassembled pressure testing : the valve was not compliant; an increase was observed for all pressure values between the values after production release and the values after return.However, all pressure values were compliant (including in tolerance range) except for the pressure p3, which was at 130 mmh2o, exceeding the maximum of 125 mmh2o.Programming testing: the valve was compliant.The batch file has been reviewed and the valve complies with the expected specifications when release from production.All pressure values increased compared to when the valve was released from production, and only one pressure position (p3) was not compliant.However, this non-conformity does not explain the malfunction.Indeed, the valve airflow and reservoir airflow tests are complaints.The flow circulates well in the valve, but the issue was that the valve did not drain.In conclusion, the valve is non-compliant with our specifications.The pressure increase observed across all positions - from the end of production to the return state - may be linked to the disassembly of internal reservoir components and the improper positioning of the reservoir guard that may have partially obstructed the outlet during testing, thereby increasing flow resistance.Traceability records confirm that the reservoir was correctly assembled during production.The root cause of this incident is misuse of the device by the user.Based on our experience in the field, one plausible hypothesis is that the distal tip of the peritoneal catheter became obstructed - either clogged or pressed against tissue following tunneling - resulting in elevated pressure.
|