|
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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2015.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight st.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) 2015 ¿ patient was diagnosed with incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralight st mesh.Per operative notes, ¿scar tissue with hernia sac was encountered and excised.Multiple small hernia defects were reduced and ventralight st mesh was placed in intraperitoneal space and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with multiple recurrent ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with removal of previously placed mesh and implant of synthetic mesh.Per operative notes, ¿several small hernia sacs in upper midline with scar tissue was noted.The sacs were connected into one large hernia sac and excised.Dense adhesions of mesentry and small intestine to underside of mesh was lysed.The chronic fluid collection underside of the mesh was drained.The old mesh was removed and to the recurrent hernia defect, a synthetic mesh was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
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-mar-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d6b, 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.H3 other text: not returned.
|