|
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 mesh ¿ dulex (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent bard/davol mesh ¿ ventralex (device #2).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: 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.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4, d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h6, h10.This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol mesh - dulex (device #1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol mesh - ventralex (device #2).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 dulex on (b)(6) 2013 and ventralex hernia patch on (b)(6) 2014.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) 2013 - patient was diagnosed with large ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of dulex mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, "two hernias notes, one slightly superior and another slightly superior to right.A bard dulex mesh (device #1) was placed and sutured." (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia and adhesions thereby underwent open repair with the removal of mesh (device #1) and implant of ventralex mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, "the old mesh (device #1) has migrated inferiorly, this was removed.A ventralex mesh (device #2) was placed and sutured.".
|