|
It was reported the patient was implanted in (b)(6) 2017 and had difficult hydrocephalus.Reportedly on 3-5 occasions, the patient had an mri and the valve setting was changed.Following the mri, the valve was reset to 0.5, but the patient developed significant hydrocephalus symptoms.It was noted the patient was in the intensive care unit for at least 1 instance.The symptoms would resolve after 2-3 days.It was stated the valve was tapped many times and the surgeon was wondering if there was any damage to the valve or debris within the valve that could have contributed to the hydrocephalus symptoms.The valve was explanted and the patient¿s status was noted as alive ¿ no injury.
|
|
The returned valve was patent.It met the requirements for valve flux, siphon, reflux, pressure flow and pre-implantation testing.However, the valve did not meet the requirement for leak testing.There were several cuts observed on the dome and proteinaceous debris was observed within the interior and exterior of the valve.It is unknown how or when the damage to the dome occurred.The ifu states ¿improper use of instruments in the handling or implantation of shunt products may result in the cutting, slitting or crushing of components¿.¿.The ifu also cautions that, ¿care must be taken to ensure that particulate contaminants are not introduced into shunt components during preimplantation testing or handling.Introduction of contaminants could result in improper performance of the shunt system.Particulate matter that enters the shunt system may result in shunt occlusion or may also hold pressure/flow controlling mechanisms open, resulting in overdrainage¿.All valves are 100% tested at the time of manufacture.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|