|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention; however, no details have been provided.No lot number has been provided; therefore, a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Should additional information be provided a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix on (b)(6) 2010.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the composix.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2010 - patient was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of composix l/p mesh.Per operative notes, ¿a right upper quadrant incision was made.Hernia sac was dissected out.A composix l/p mesh was placed into the abdomen and secure it with sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2010 - patient was diagnosed with adhesion through mesh, pain, thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with lysis of adhesion.Per operative notes, ¿a midline incision was made.There was significant amount of adhesion.Lysis of adhesions were performed.Previously placed mesh was pulled up into the previous hernia defect, because it was contracted and pulled away.The entire piece of mesh was able to be evaluated.There was no evidence of recurrence near the edge of the mesh.The defect was closed with sutures.¿.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention; however, no details have been provided.No lot number has been provided; therefore, a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Addendum: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the brand name and 510 (k) number.Root cause is inconclusive, no conclusion can be made as to the extent to which the implant may have caused or contributed to the patient's postoperative course.Note, the manufacturing date (15-mar-2009) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., expiry date, udi no.), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d1 (brand name), g4 (510 (k) number).Note: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.H3 other text: not returned.
|