| Catalog Number |
0115312 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Pain (1994); Hernia (2240); Obstruction/Occlusion (2422); 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 3dmax (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol 3dmax (device #2).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 two unspecified bard/davol 3dmax meshes on (b)(6) 2006 and (b)(6) 2011.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient had personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
| |
|
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: 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.This supplemental emdr represents the 3dmax (device #1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the 3dmax (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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of two unspecified bard/davol 3dmax meshes on (b)(6) 2006 and (b)(6) 2011.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient had personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2006 ¿ patient was diagnosed with left inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of 3dmax mesh (device #1).Per op notes, ¿there was a direct and indirect hernia.A bard extra large left-sided 3dmax mesh (device #1) was placed in the preperitoneal space and positioned to cover the direct space, the indirect space and the femoral space and tacked.¿ (b)(6) 2011 ¿ patient was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of 3dmax mesh (device #2).Per op notes, ¿there was a direct and indirect hernia.The large right-sided 3dmax mesh (device #2) was positioned to cover the direct space, the indirect space and the femoral space and tacked to the symphysis pubis and anterior abdominal wall using absorbable tacks.¿.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|