Per patient medical records, post 2005 implant of the bard/davol dart mesh, the patient experienced a recurrent hernia in 2006 and underwent surgical intervention, at which time an additional non-bard/davol mesh was placed.During a subsequent 2009 procedure for the repair of another recurrent hernia the medical records note the explant of a torn previously placed hernia mesh.There is no indication in the jan2006 operative report that the previously 2005 implanted bard/davol dart mesh was encountered during the ¿recurrence¿ repair.In addition, the initial reporter limited the adverse event allegation claim to the 2006 implanted non-bard/davol mesh and did not make any allegation of adverse event related to the bard/davol dart mesh.Though not discernable from the limited hernia location descriptions in the operative reports, it is possible that the 2006 ¿recurrence¿ repair is in a noticeably identifiable location in relation to the initial 2005 bard/davol dart mesh hernia repair site.However, based on the provided operative reports, it remains unclear which previously implanted mesh was alleged to have torn and was explanted during 2009 index procedure.Based on the information available, no conclusions can be made.Hernia recurrence is a known inherent risk of hernia repair surgery and is listed in the adverse reactions section of the instructions-for-use supplied with the device as a possible complication.Review of manufacturing records indicates product was manufactured to specification, with no indication of a manufacturing related cause for the event reported.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental mdr will be submitted.Mesh explanted.
|