• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. XENMATRIX AB; PORCINE SURGICAL MESH

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC. XENMATRIX AB; PORCINE SURGICAL MESH Back to Search Results
Catalog Number 1151928
Medical Device Problem Codes Defective Device (2588); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
Health Effect - Clinical Codes Abdominal Pain (1685); Abscess (1690); Pain (1994); Insufficient Information (4580)
Date of Event 11/03/2016
Type of Reportable Event Serious Injury
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges "past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient"; 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 xenmatrix ab (device #5).Additional emdrs were submitted to represent the bard/davol sepramesh ip (device #1), the bard/davol ventralex st (device #2), the bard/davol ventrio st (device #3) and the bard/davol phasix mesh (device #4).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 sepramesh composite ip on (b)(6) 2010, ventralex st and ventrio st on (b)(6) 2014, phasix mesh and xenmatrix ab on (b)(6) 2016.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against all devices.It is alleged that the patient sustained injuries on (b)(6) 2016.Attorney alleges general allegations for ¿past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient." it is also alleged that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
 
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges "past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient"; 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.Based on the additional information received, there is no change to initial determination, no conclusions can be made.Per medical records review, post implant of xenmatrix ab, patient was diagnosed with abscess and abdominal pain thereby underwent repair.Note, the manufacturing date (15-nov-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.This supplemental emdr represents xenmatrix ab (device #5).Additional supplemental emdr's were submitted to represent sepramesh ip (device #1), ventralex st (device #2), ventrio st (device #3) and phasix mesh (device #4).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 unspecified bard/davol sepramesh composite ip on (b)(6) 2010, ventralex st and ventrio st on (b)(6) 2014, phasix mesh and xenmatrix ab on (b)(6) 2016.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against all devices.It is alleged that the patient sustained injuries on (b)(6) 2016.Attorney alleges general allegations for ¿past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, mental and physical pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient." it is also alleged that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2010 - patient was diagnosed with large recurrent ventral umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of sepramesh ip (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿the lipoma of the cord was excised.A sepramesh ip (device #1) was placed and secured to the fascia using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent complex ventral hernia and pain thereby underwent open repair with explant of sepramesh ip (device #1) and implant of ventralex st (device #2) and ventrio st (device #3).Per operative notes, ¿sepramesh ip (device #1) was appeared to be loose and it was excised.An another hernia defect was identified between the two layers of sepramesh ip (device #1) and all adhesions were taken down.A medium size ventralex st mesh (device #2) was placed and secured by sutures.Then a ventrio st (device #3) was placed and secured by sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with chronic abdominal pain thereby underwent laparoscopic repair.Per operative notes, ¿all adhesions were taken down and the bowel appeared to be intact.¿ (there were no visualization/mention of sepramesh ip (device #1), ventralex st (device #2) and ventrio st (device #3).(b)(6) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with mesh infection, purulent discharge and abdominal pain thereby underwent open repair with explant of ventralex st (device #2), ventrio st (device #3) and implant of phasix mesh (device #4), xenmatrix ab (device #5).Per operative notes, ¿both ventralex st (device #2) and ventrio st (device #3) were removed.All adhesions were taken down in the anterior abdominal wall.Then a xenmatrix ab (device #5) was placed underlay and secured to the anterior abdominal wall using sutures.Then a phasix mesh (device #4) was placed overlay and anchored to the abdominal wall using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2016 to (b)(6) 2017 - patient complains of abscess and abdominal pain.Attorney alleges that the patient had abscess, adhesions, bowel obstruction, infection, mesh migration, mesh shrinkage, pain, hernia recurrence, seroma and emotional injuries.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
XENMATRIX AB
Common Device Name
PORCINE SURGICAL MESH
Manufacturer (Section D)
DAVOL INC., SUB. C.R. BARD, INC.
100 crossings blvd.
warwick RI 02886
Manufacturer (Section G)
BARD SHANNON LIMITED 3005636544
san geronimo industrial park
lot #1, road #3, km 79.7
humacao PR 00791
Manufacturer Contact
andrew topoulos
100 crossings blvd.
warwick, RI 02886
4018258495
MDR Report Key12097828
Report Number1213643-2021-05438
Device Sequence Number3771178
Product Code PIJ
UDI-Device Identifier00801741074271
UDI-Public(01)00801741074271(17)171128(10)HUZK0569
Combination Product (Y/N)Y
Initial Reporter StateRI
Initial Reporter CountryUS
PMA/510(K) Number
K151177
Number of Events Summarized1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Device Implanted Year2016
Reporter Type Manufacturer
Report Source Other,Consumer
Initial Reporter Occupation Non-Healthcare Professional
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date (Section B) 11/26/2024
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? No
Operator of Device Health Professional
Device Expiration Date11/28/2017
Device Catalogue Number1151928
Device Lot NumberHUZK0569
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Type of Report(Section G)Initial
Initial Date Received by Manufacturer 06/11/2021
Supplement Date Received by Manufacturer11/05/2024
Initial Report FDA Received Date07/01/2021
Supplement Report FDA Received Date11/26/2024
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? (Y/N) Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured11/15/2015
Is the Device Labeled for Single Use? (Y/N) Yes
Is This a Single-Use Device that was
Reprocessed and Reused on a Patient? (Y/N)
No
Usage of Device Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Outcome Attributed to Adverse Event Disability; Required Intervention;
Patient Age56 YR
Patient SexFemale
Patient Weight99 KG
-
-