| Catalog Number |
5955810 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Insufficient Information (4580)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional 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.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 ventralight st mesh (device #2).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol mesh ¿ ventralex (device #1).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol ventralex hernia patch and ventralight st on (b)(6) 2019 and/or (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol ventralex hernia patch and ventralight st on (b)(6) 2019 and/or (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.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) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of ventralex mesh (device 1).Per op notes, ¿the sac was resected to fascial edges.An inlay ventralex mesh (device 1) was placed subfascial using sutures circumferentially around the entire defect.¿ (b)(6) 2020 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the removal of mesh (device 1) and ventralight st using echo ps (device 2).Per op notes, ¿the previous mesh (device 1) was identified it was crumpled toward the superior aspect of the fascial defect.The mesh (device 1) was removed in its entirety.A ventralight st using echo ps (device 2) was placed to cover the area include above and below the umbilicus using tackers.¿.
|
| |
|
Additional 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.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-oct-2018) is considered to be a best estimate.This supplemental emdr represents the bd ventralight st w/echo mesh (device 2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bd mesh ¿ ventralex (device 1).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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|