|
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 the implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2017.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against ventralight st.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the device was defective.Addendum per additional information received: (b)(6) 2017 - patient was diagnosed with ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps.Per operative notes, ¿the hernia defect was identified and ventralight st using echo ps was placed for the repair in the abdominal cavity and tacked circumferentially.(b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia with pain thereby underwent open repair with removal of previously placed mesh and implant of biological mesh.Per operative notes, ¿the recurrent hernia present superiorly were noted.Considerable amount of scarring with loose mesh was identified.The adhesions and previously placed mesh were removed and biological 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: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the product identifiers.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-jan-2017) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected fields: d1 (brand name), d4, g4 (pma/510(k) #).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.
|