|
Catalog Number 5950050 |
Device Problems
Defective Device (2588); Insufficient Information (3190)
|
Patient Problems
Adhesion(s) (1695); Inflammation (1932); Hernia (2240); Disability (2371)
|
Event Date 08/13/2014 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, hernia recurrence, adhesions, inflammation and surgical intervention.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence, adhesions, and inflammation as possible complications.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
|
Event Description
|
Attorney alleges that on or about (b)(6) 2012, the patient was implanted with a non-bard/davol mesh to repair an umbilical hernia.On or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent repair of a recurrent hernia and a bard/davol ventrio st mesh was implanted during this repair.On or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent additional revision surgery of the mesh products.It is alleged that the patient had experienced and/or continues to experience severe pain, inflammation, adhesions, and recurrence.Attorney alleges general allegations for "past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient." it is also alleged that the device was defective.
|
|
Event Description
|
Attorney alleges that on or about (b)(6) 2012, the patient was implanted with a non-bard/davol mesh to repair an umbilical hernia.On or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent repair of a recurrent hernia and a bard/davol ventrio st mesh, 5.4 x 7 in., was implanted during this repair.On or about (b)(6) 2014, the patient underwent additional revision surgery of the mesh products.The eptfe bard mesh implanted in patient failed to reasonably perform as intended and had to be surgically removed necessitating further invasive surgery.It is alleged that the patient had experienced and/or continues to experience severe pain, inflammation, adhesions, and recurrence.Attorney alleges general allegations for "past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient." it is also alleged that the device was defective.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, hernia recurrence, adhesions, inflammation and surgical intervention.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence, adhesions, and inflammation as possible complications.Addendum: h11: this is an addendum to the initial emdr submitted.This supplemental emdr is submitted to report the correct event description regarding mesh explant omitted in the initial emdr and the corrected brand name.Updated fields: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6, h10, h11.Corrected fields: b5 (event description), d1 (brand name).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.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.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|