|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, infection, hernia recurrence, hematoma and subsequent surgical intervention.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence and hematoma as possible complications.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.In regards to the infection, the instructions-for-use states "if an infection develops, treat the infection aggressively.Consideration should be given regarding the need to remove the prosthesis.An unresolved infection may require removal of the prosthesis." should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
|
Attorney alleges that on or about (b)(6) 2008, the patient underwent surgery for repair of a massive incisional hernia.A composix e/x, was implanted to repair the hernia defect.On or about (b)(6) 2008, the patient underwent an additional surgery.An excision of infected mesh and repair of re-recurrent incisional hernia was performed.On or about (b)(6) 2009, the patient underwent a revision of wound procedure due to a wound hematoma that released through previous incision following the patient's repair on (b)(6) 2008.On or about (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent an additional surgery.A laparoscopic abdominal wall hernia repair with an non-bard/davol mesh was performed.On or about (b)(6) 2018, the patient underwent an additional surgery and a laparoscopic repair of incisional hernia with two non-bard/davol meshes was performed.It is alleged that the patient was injured severely and permanently.The patient suffered pain, disability, hospitalizations and additional surgeries.It is also alleged that the patient has suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain, chronic pain, mental anguish, psychological stress, depression, has undergone and will likely require medical treatments and other forms of care.Attorney also alleges that the device was defective.
|