| Catalog Number |
5959360 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682); Insufficient Device Problem Information (3190)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Hernia (2240); Injury (2348)
|
| Date of Event |
07/09/2015
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol sepramesh ip and ventralight st.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip which was implanted on (b)(6) 2009.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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient.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: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided.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: 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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol sepramesh ip and ventralight st.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip which was implanted on (b)(6) 2009.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) 2009 - patient was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, "a sepramesh ip (device 1) was tacked to the fascia at the midline using prolene sutures." (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional ventral hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of ventralight st mesh using echo ps (device 2).Per op notes, "adhesiolysis was done, a ventralight st mesh using echo ps (device 2) was placed into the abdomen using tacks." (note: the previously placed sepramesh ip (device 1) was not seen during this procedure).
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|