|
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.Not returned.
|
|
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 gender.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.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d3, d4 (catalog no, udi), g3, g6, h2, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: a3 (sex).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 sepramesh ip on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip.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 left flank incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of sepramesh ip (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿the hernia sac was identified and reduced.A sepramesh ip (device #1) was placed, sutured and tacked.¿ (b)(6) 2014 to (b)(6) 2014 ¿ patient had chronic pain thereby underwent nerve block with injections.(b)(6) 2015 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent left flank incisional hernia with chronic pain thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard flat mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿the scar was excised.The hernia defect was identified and dissected free.A bard flat mesh (device #2) was placed and tacked using prolene sutures.¿ (note: the sepramesh (device #1) was not seen during this procedure).
|