| Catalog Number |
0117060 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Scar Tissue (2060); Hernia (2240); Insufficient Information (4580)
|
| Date of Event |
05/22/2019
|
|
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.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 an unspecified bard/davol perfix plug on (b)(6) 2016.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the perfix plug.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 an unspecified bard/davol perfix plug on (b)(6) 2016.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the perfix plug.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: on (b)(6) 2016 ¿ patient was diagnosed with left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with perfix light plug.Per operative notes, ¿ hernia sac was separated from the cord structures and perfix plug light mesh was placed and anchored to the internal ring and sutured.¿ on (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia and right inguinal hernia thereby underwent robot assisted laparoscopic repair with implant of two synthetic mesh.Per operative notes, ¿ the indirect left recurrence beside the mesh at level of internal ring was noted.The mesh densely scarred, and adherent was left intact.In right side, ¿the indirect and direct hernia was noted, and synthetic mesh was placed bilaterally and closed with sutures.¿.
|
| |
|
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 brand name and pma/510(k).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-mar-2016) is considered to be a best estimate.Corrected field: d1(brand name) 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|