|
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.This emdr represents the bard/davol ventrio patch (device #2).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralex hernia patch (device #1).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard/davol ventralex hernia patch on (b)(6) 2018 and ventrio patch on (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both devices.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) 2018 ¿ patient was diagnosed with umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralex mesh (device 1).Per operative notes, ¿the hernia in the infraumbilical region was noted.The sac was dissected and reduced from the surrounding tissues.Two additional small hernia defects in fascia cephalas to umbilical defect was noted.The sacs were reduced and excised and a ventralex mesh (device 1) was placed intra-abdominally and secured to fascia using sutures and tacks.¿ (b)(6) 2020 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incarcerated ventral incisional hernia and small bowel obstruction thereby underwent open repair with partial removal of prior mesh (device 1) and implant of ventrio hernia patch (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿the incarcerated hernia from the prior incision was noted.The loop of small bowel was partially incarcerated and dissected away from the fascial defect.The sac was reduced completely and small bowel adhesions from prior mesh (device 1) were also lysed.Some of the previous mesh (device 1) were removed and large ventralex mesh (device 2) was placed over the fascial defect sutured and tacked circumferentially.¿.
|
|
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: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided.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-mar-2018) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4, g1, g3, g4, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol ventrio patch (device 2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralex hernia patch (device 1).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.H3 other text: not returned.
|