| 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); Scar Tissue (2060); Hernia (2240); Injury (2348)
|
| Date of Event |
12/18/2014
|
|
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 (implant date not provided).As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol sepramesh ip and ventralight st (implant date not provided).As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip.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) 2013 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per operative notes, ¿the scar tissue was excised.The previously placed synthetic mesh was removed.The fascia was identified and a piece of sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2014 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incarcerated ventral incisional hernia and adhesions thereby underwent laparoscopic converted to open repair with removal of sepramesh ip (device 1) and an implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿adhesions were lysed.Scar tissue was excised.The sepramesh ip (device 1) was identified and removed.A ventralight st using echo ps (device 2) was placed to cover well under the rectus muscles inferiorly and superiorly and sutured.¿.
|
| |
|
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, the manufacturing date (15-jun-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|