|
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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard mesh (bard flat mesh) on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard mesh (bard flat mesh).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: (b)(6) 2014 ¿ patient was diagnosed with symptomatic incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of dulex mesh.Per op notes, ¿hernia sac was identified.A dulex mesh was placed as soft side toward the fascia and rough side toward the subcutaneous tissue using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2015 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia; abscess thereby underwent open repair with the removal of mesh.Per op notes, ¿the mesh was folded upon itself and there was some fluid collection in between the two layers of the infected mesh.The mesh was completely excisedwhich was detached from fascia.¿.
|
|
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.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no.), d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, 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.
|