|
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 composix mesh e/x (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the 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: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the date of implant.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, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., udi no.), d.6b, g1, g3, g6, h2, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d.6a(date of implant).This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol composix mesh e/x (device 1).An additional 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.H3 other text: not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol composix e/x and ventralex hernia patch on (b)(6) 2013.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 medical records and plaintiff profile form: (b)(6) 2013 - patient was diagnosed with ventral incisional hernia and umbilical hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic and open repair with implant of composix e/x mesh (device 1).Per op notes, ¿the ventral incisional hernia sac was identified and dissected free.A composix e/x (device 1) was placed and tacked using sutures.The umbilical hernia sac was identified, dissected free and repaired with sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralex st mesh (device 2).Per op notes, ¿the hernia sac was identified and opened.The contents of the sac were reduced.The sac was excised.The prior mesh (device 1) with tacks were noted.A ventralex st (device 2) was placed and sutured with prior mesh (device 1).¿ (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with small bowel obstruction and recurrent ventral hernia with pain thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with excision of composix e/x (device 1) and ventralex st (device 2).Per op notes, ¿extensive adhesions of abdomen to the prior meshes (device 1 and 2) were lysed.The prior mesh (device 1 and 2) appeared crenated folds, retracted and displaced were excised entirely.Two major loops of small bowel were identified and released.The adhesions of small bowel and mesh were lysed.The hernia defect was identified and repaired with sutures.¿.
|