|
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 flat mesh (device #3).Additional emdrs were submitted to represent the bard flat mesh (device #1) and bard/davol perfix plug (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.Note, the manufacturing date (15-oct-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., expiry date, udi no.), d6a, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol¿ bard flat mesh (device 3).Additional supplemental emdr's were submitted to represent the bard/davol - ventralight st using echo ps (device 1) and perfix plug (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 mesh (bard flat mesh) and bard/davol perfix plug on (b)(6) 2015 and/or (b)(6) 2016 (x2).As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against all 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) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with ventral hernia and left inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 1) and perfix plug (device 2).Per op notes, ¿the ventral hernia sac was noted and reduced.A ventralight st with echo ps (device 1) was placed and tacked using sutures.The left inguinal hernia sac was noted and reduced.A perfix plug (device 2) was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard flat mesh (device 3).Per op notes, ¿the left inguinal hernia sac was noted and reduced.A bard flat mesh (device 3) was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2016 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st (device 4).Per op notes, ¿the left inguinal hernia was noted and reduced.A ventralight st mesh (device 4) was placed and tacked using sutures.¿.
|