|
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.Device evaluated by manufacturer? not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight st.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) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia of lower abdomen thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralight st.Per op notes, ¿the prior mesh from periumbilical repair was noted and excised.Adhesions were lysed.The hernia sac was identified, reduced and excised.A ventralight st mesh was placed and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of synthetic mesh.Per op notes, ¿adhesions were taken down.The small bowel was adherent to abdominal was lysed.A synthetic mesh was placed and tacked using sutures.¿.
|
|
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-mar-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (catalog no, lot no, udi, expiry date), g3, g4, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.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.
|