|
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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol kugel hernia patch, ventralight st and ventrio st on (b)(6) 2016 and/or (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight 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.
|
|
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, the manufacturing date (15-jun-2010) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b2, b3, b4, b5, d3, d4 (product catalog no, corporate lot no, expiry date, udi), d6a (date of implant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol kugel hernia patch, ventralight st and ventrio st on (b)(6) 2016 and/or (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight 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) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with ventral incisional hernia and left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralight st mesh (device #1) and kugel patch (device #2).Per op notes, "the ventral incisional hernia defect was placed with ventralight st mesh (device #1) and sutured.In the left inguinal defect, a kugel patch (device #2) was placed and sutured." (b)(6) 2019 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventrio st mesh (device #3).Per op notes, "a ventrio st mesh (device #3) was placed and sutured.".
|