|
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.
|
|
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-sep-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, 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.
|
|
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 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 ventral hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps mesh (device 1).Per operative notes, ¿multiple small defects were noted and reduced.A large ventralight st using echo ps mesh (device 1) was placed into the abdomen and closed the fascia with sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with symptomatic incarcerated incisional hernia and pain thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st mesh (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿adhesions to the prior mesh (device 1) was lysed.In right of midline, the incisional hernia defect at upper edges of mesh (device 1) was reduced.A ventralight st mesh (device 2) was placed over the fascial defect and tacked to the anterior abdominal wall.¿.
|