|
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).Additional emdrs were submitted to represent the two bard/davol mesh ¿ ventralex (device #2 & device #3).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 on (b)(6) 2013 and two ventralex hernia patches on (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against all devices.It is alleged 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) 2013 - patient was diagnosed with ventral hernia and umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, ¿the ventral hernia sac was identified and reduced.The umbilical hernia sac was identified and reduced.Both hernias were combined.Adhesions were taken down.A sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia and left lower quadrant incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralex st (device 2 and 3).Per op notes, ¿the ventral hernia sac was identified, dissected and reduced.A ventralex st (device 2) was placed and sutured.An incisional hernia sac was identified on the left lower quadrant from prior robotic surgery was identified and reduced.A ventralex st (device 3) was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent robotic assisted repair with excision of ventralex st (device 2) and implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 4).Per op notes, ¿several adhesions from the omentum to abdominal wall were lysed.The ventralex st (device 2) with seroma was noted and evacuated.The prior mesh (device 2) deteriorated.A ventralight st using echo ps (device 4) was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
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-may-2012) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.This supplemental emdr represents the sepramesh ip (device 1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralex st mesh (device 2, device 3).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.
|