|
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.This emdr represents the bard/davol ventrio st (device #2).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device #1).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 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-feb-2018) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., udi no., expiry date, corporate lot no.), d.6a (date of implant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11 corrected field: a3 (sex) this supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol ventrio st (device #2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device #1).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 ventralight st and ventrio st on (b)(6) 2016 and/or (b)(6) 2018.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.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 unspecified abdominal hernia with obstruction without gangrene, adhesion thereby underwent robotic assisted repair with the implant of the bard ventralight st mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿adhesions were taken down.Hernia sac was dissected.A ventralight st mesh (device #1) was placed and secure it with suture.¿ (b)(6) 2018 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernias, pain, adhesion, thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with explant of previously placed bard ventralight st mesh (device #1) and implant of bard ventrio st mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿hernia sac was dissected out.All adhesions were taken down.Previously placed ventralight st mesh (device #1) was excised properly.A ventrio st mesh (device #2) was placed and sutured.¿.
|