|
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 3dmax light mesh on (b)(6) 2017.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the 3dmax light mesh.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) 2017 - patient was diagnosed with bilateral inguinal hernias thereby underwent open repair with the implant of two 3dmax light meshes (device 1 and device 2).Per op notes, "a.Large indirect left inguinal hernia was identified, and a smaller right inguinal hernia was also identified.Two 3dmax light meshes (device 1 - left and device 2 - right) were placed into the anterior abdominal wall on either sides of the epigastric vessels." (b)(6) 2017 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia thereby underwent robotic repair with the removal of mesh (device 1).Per op notes, "a left inguinal hernia defect which was recurrent.No significant defect was found on the right side.On the left side, a piece of mesh (device 1) was cut on the cranial and medial side of the cord structures." (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open lichtenstein tension-free repair with synthetic mesh.
|
|
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 catalog no.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-sep-2016) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2,a4,b3,b4,b5,b7,d3,d4(product catalog no., udi no, expiry date, corporate lot no),d.6b (date of explant), g3,g6,h2,h4,h6,h10.Corrected field: d4 (product catalog no.), 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.
|