|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including permanent injury, hernia recurrence, adhesions and subsequent surgical intervention for mesh removal.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence and adhesions as possible complications.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges the patient underwent surgery to repair a midline hernia and implanted with a non-bard/davol product on or about (b)(6) 2012.It is alleged that the patient underwent revision surgery of the non-bard/davol product for a recurrent midline hernia and a bard/davol composix e/x was implanted on or about (b)(6) 2017.It is also alleged that the patient underwent removal surgery on or about (b)(6) 2019.Attorney alleges that the patient experienced and/or continues to experience severe and chronic pain/discomfort, dense adhesions, adhesions to the small intestine, mesh contraction, mesh was attached to a severe fibrotic plate, necrosis, fibrosis, recurrence, and surgery to remove mesh.It is alleged that the patient is at a higher risk of severe complications during an abdominal surgery, to the extent that future abdominal operations might not be feasible.Attorney alleges past, present, and future damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering for severe and permanent personal injuries sustained by the patient.It is also alleged that the device was defective.
|