|
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 the implant of an unspecified bard/davol perfix light plug on (b)(6) 2017.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the perfix light plug.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for the implant of an unspecified bard/davol perfix light plug on (b)(6) 2017.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the perfix light plug.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2017 - patient was diagnosed with incarcerated left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of perfix plug light.Per op notes, ¿the hernia sac with incarcerated colon was noted and reduced.The sac and cord lipoma were excised.A perfix plug light mesh was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incarcerated left inguinal hernia with pain thereby underwent open repair with excision of perfix plug light.Per op notes, ¿the scar tissue was excised.The hernia sac was noted with incarcerated sigmoid colon was reduced.The sac was excised.The prior mesh was noted and excised entirely.The hernia was repaired using sutures.¿.
|
|
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-sep-2017) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., expiry date, udi no.), d6b (date of explant), 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.
|