|
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 composix e/x and ventrio patch on (b)(6) 2013 and/or (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventrio patch.It is alleged 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 incarcerated epigastric hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventrio mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿midline epigastric defect with sac was dissected and ventrio mesh (device #1) was placed and sutured and stapled.¿ (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incarcerated epigastric hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of composix e/x mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿in left upper quadrant, significant adhesions were removed.The recurrent incarcerated epigastric hernia and two supraumbilical hernias in the right and left of midline were noted and reduced.A composix e/x mesh (device #2) was placed covering all three defects and sutured to anterior abdominal wall.¿.
|
|
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-oct-2012) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., expiry date, udi no., corporate lot no.), d.6b (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.
|