|
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 ventralight st mesh (device #2).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (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 ventralight st meshes on (b)(6) 2015 and (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) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 1) and composix e/x (device 2).Per op notes, ¿a large hernia sac was identified and reduced.A ventralight st using echo ps (device 1) and a composix e/x (device 2) was placed and sutured using sorbafix absorbable tacks.¿ (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia with abdominal pain thereby underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic repair with excision of ventralight st using echo ps (device 1), composix e/x (device 2) and implant of ventralight st using echo ps 2 (device 3).Per op notes, ¿extensive adhesions were note and lysed.The prior mesh (device 1 and 2) identified to be rippled and folded back itself and the superior edge of mesh had come loose.The entire mesh (device 1 and 2) was excised and removed.The hernia defect was identified and reduced.A ventralight st using echo ps 2 (device 3) 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 the product identifiers.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-oct-2019) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b4, b5, b7, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d1 (brand name), d4, g4 (pma/510(k)).This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol ventralight st w/ echo 2 (device 3).Additional supplemental emdr and emdr were submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st w/ echo 2 (device 1) and bard/davol mesh - composix e/x (device 2).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.
|