|
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 mfr: not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol composix on (b)(6) 2009.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against composix.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.Attorney alleges that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol composix on (b)(6) 2009.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against composix.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.Attorney alleges that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: on (b)(6) 2009 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of composix l/p mesh.Per op notes, ¿the hernia sac was noted and reduced.A composix l/p mesh was placed and sutured.¿ on (b)(6) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with bowel perforation and pneumoperitoneum thereby underwent open repair with excision of composix l/p mesh and implant of biological mesh.Per op notes, ¿the prior mesh was noted to be torn, and the mesh was excised entirely.The adhesions of small bowel were lysed.The fluid was drained.A biological mesh was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
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 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-feb-2008) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4, d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected fields: 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.
|