|
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 an unspecified bard/davol composix e/x on (b)(6) 2011.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the composix e/x.Attorney alleges 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.
|
|
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 patient gender.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-oct-2010) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4(product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: a3 (sex).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 an unspecified bard/davol composix e/x on (b)(6) 2011.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the composix e/x.Attorney alleges 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) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with open midline incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of composix e/x mesh.Per op notes, "a composix e/x mesh was placed and sutured." (b)(6) 2012 - patient was diagnosed with infected mesh thereby underwent explant of composix e/x mesh.Per op notes, "lysis of adhesions was performed and the crumpled mesh was excised.".
|