|
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.
|
|
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: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the brand name and pma/510(k)# 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-dec-2009) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no, expiry date, udi no.), d6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d1 (brand name), g4 (pma/510(k)#) 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.
|
|
Attorney alleges the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventrio st on (b)(6) 2011.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventrio st.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) 2011 ¿ patient was diagnosed with incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventrio mesh.Per operative notes, ¿above the umbilicus, hernia sac was identified and dissected circumferentially.The defect was dissected and ventrio mesh was set in place and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2021 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic repair with removal of previously placed mesh and implant of synthetic mesh.Per operative notes, ¿the sacred area of previous hernia repair with recurrent hernia was noted.Adherent omental tissues were taken down and large piece of folded ventrio mesh was removed and synthetic mesh was placed in the intrabdominal wall tacked and sutured.¿.
|