Device evaluation: date received by mfr, type of reports, if follow-up, what type?, device evaluated by mfr?, evaluation codes, additional mfr narrative.Upon completion of the investigation it was noted that the position of the cam when valve was received was at setting 3.The valve was visually inspected: a needle hole in the needle chamber was noted.The valve was hydrated for 24 hours.The valve was tested for programming.The valve passed the test.The valve was flushed, the valve passed the test no occlusion was noted.The valve was leak tested, leaked from the needle hole in the needle chamber.The valve was reflux tested, the valve passed the test.The siphon guard was tested.The valve passed the test.The valve was dried.The valve was then pressure tested, the valve failed the test.The valve was dismantled and was examined under microscope at appropriate magnification: biological debris was found on the ruby ball, this debris was probably stopping the ruby ball from sitting correctly on the seat of the ruby ball.Review of the history device records confirmed the valve product code 82-8805pl, with lot ctmb87, conformed to the specifications when released to stock in 3rd november 2015.The root cause for the pressure problem found during investigation was due to biological debris on the ruby ball.Based on the results of this investigation no further action is required.Trends will be monitored for this and similar complaints.At the present time this complaint is closed.
|