|
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 implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2014.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 alleged that the patient sustained personal injury.It is also alleged that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with large incarcerated incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of ventralight st w/ echo mesh.Per operative notes, ¿the hernia sac was dissected.A ventralight st w/ echo mesh was placed into abdomen and secure it with suture.¿ (b)(6) 2018 - patient was diagnosed with incisional recurrent hernia, adhesion, abdominal pain thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of biological mesh and explant of ventralight st w/ echo mesh.Per operative notes, ¿hernia sac was dissected.All adhesions were taken down.Ventralight st w/ echo mesh was removed properly.One 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-jul-2014) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, 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.H3 other text: not returned.
|