Model Number 42365 |
Device Problems
Device Operates Differently Than Expected (2913); Insufficient Information (3190)
|
Patient Problems
Headache (1880); Therapeutic Response, Decreased (2271); No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
Event Date 06/28/2018 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported the patient's valve was implanted on (b)(6) 2018, but had to be removed on (b)(6) 2018 because it was not working.It was noted that it would not do anything so the customer believed there was some type of malfunction going on.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Event Description
|
Additional information received reported that there was a shunt valve malfunction.The patient's headaches had returned, and the surgeon was unable to interrogate the shunt.The shunt valve was attempted to be interrogated, but there was no current reading on it.The surgeon determined the valve was nonfunctional and recommended a revision of the shunt.It was stated the valve was implant on (b)(6) 2018 and explanted on (b)(6) 2018.Therefore, it is unclear when the device was implanted and explanted due to conflicting information being reported.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Event Description
|
Additional information received reported that it was confirmed that the patient was implanted on (b)(6) 2018 as a cystoperitoneal shunt placement, laparoscopic and explanted on (b)(6) 2018 where the shunt valve was replaced and a revision of the proximal catheter.The patient was discharged home on (b)(6) 2018.It was unknown if there were any environmental/external/patient factors that may have led or contributed to the issue.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The returned valve had a blue tint that is possibly due to fluid in the specimen container.It met the requirements for patency, reflux, leak testing, and valve flux test.However, the valve did not meet the requirements for pressure-flow and preimplantation.There was proteinaceous debris noted within the interior and exterior of the valve.Debris within the valve may hold pressure-flow controlling mechanisms open resulting in fluid reflux and affecting the flow of fluid through the valve.The instructions for use (ifu) that accompany the device cautions that ¿introduction of contaminant could result in improper performance of the shunt system.Particulate matter that enters the shunt system may result in shunt occlusion.¿ there was damage noted on the valve flange.It is unknown how or when the damaged occurred.The ifu that accompanies the product cautions that, ¿improper use of instruments in the handling or implantation of shunt products may result in the cutting, slitting or crushing of components¿.All valves are 100% tested at the time of manufacture.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|