|
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 sepramesh ip(device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st(device #2) should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol sepramesh ip and ventralight st on (b)(6) 2018 and/or (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the both devices.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
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-dec-2017) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d.6a (date of implant), d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10 this supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol sepramesh ip(device 1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st w/echo (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 sepramesh ip and ventralight st on (b)(6) 2018 and/or (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the both devices.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2018 - patient was diagnosed with umbilical ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, "an incision was made to the umbilicus, a sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed using prolene sutures." (b)(6) 2019 - patient was diagnosed with incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic repair with the removal of mesh (device 1) and implant of ventralight st mesh using echo ps (device 2).Per op notes, "lysis of adhesions was performed.The previous mesh (device 1) was displaced to the hernia sac, part of the displaced old mesh was removed.A ventralight st mesh using echo ps (device 2) was placed into the abdominal cavity.".
|