Attorney alleges that on (b)(6) 2019, the patient had a pre-operative diagnoses of an incisional hernia.In the course of the surgery, it was found that the patient had extensive abdominal adhesions and the hernia was repaired laparoscopically with a bard/davol of ventralight st mesh with echo ps.Attorney alleges that approximately two months after the operation implanting the ventralight st mesh with echo ps, the patient began suffering post-surgical complications of pain and concern that possible mesh migration or failure had occurred.It is alleged that the patient continued to have problems and was finally seen by a surgeon, who on (b)(6) 2020, approved surgical repair for the painful hernia implant failure.Attorney alleges that at that time, an abdominal binder (hernia mesh) no longer helped as the patient's intestines protruded through the holes of the detached mesh, strangling them and causing bowel obstruction and ulcerative colitis which was extremely painful and extremely dangerous.It is alleged that after the (b)(6) 2020 approval for surgical repair, and for the past year, on dozens of occasions, the patient requested that the approved hernia repair surgery be performed but all attempts to obtain such surgery were denied or ignored by the defendants, patient's healthcare provider and the doc.It is alleged that during this period with regard to the mesh problem, the patient suffered continuous pain, and had to continually attempt to physically push the protruding hernia back into the abdominal cavity.Attorney alleges that patient's hernia mesh caused side effects from the procedure in that the mesh failed, totally migrated, developed holes in the mesh and generally caused incredible pain, ulcerative colitis and other medical conditions as a result of the mesh itself.Attorney alleges that the complications included erosions, adhesion, recurring hernias, perforations, mesh shrinkage and chronic pain.It is also alleged that once the mesh began to erode, it shrinks, shrivels and pulls away from any tissue its adhered to leading to new hernias, chronic pain and migration together with adhesions, bowel obstruction and fistula.These side effects were incurred by patient.Attorney alleges past and future pain and suffering, for medical complications as a result of the failure of its defective product.
|
No conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges adverse patient outcome associated with the hernia mesh used to treat the patient including bowel strangulation, perforation, hernia recurrence, obstruction, fistula, erosion and adhesion.The instructions-for-use (ifu) supplied with the device lists hernia recurrence, fistula and adhesions as possible complications.No lot number has been provided; therefore, a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Note, as specific event date was not provided, the date of event was estimated as (b)(6) 2019.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|