|
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 flat mesh (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol perfix plug (device #2).Should additional information be provided a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
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 brand name and 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.Note, the manufacturing date (15-jun-2019) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot.No., expiry date, udi no.,), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d1, g4.His supplemental emdr represents the bard mesh pre-shaped w/ keyhole (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol perfix plug (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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of unspecified bard mesh (bard flat mesh) and bard/davol perfix plug on (b)(6) 2020 (x2).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) 2020- patient was diagnosed with giant incarcerated scrotal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard pre-shaped mesh (device 1) and perfix plug (device 2).Per op notes, ¿hernia sac was identified in the right inguinal region and was reduced.Bard pre-shaped mesh (device 1) and perfix plug (device 2) were placed in the inguinal region and sutured¿.(b)(6) 2021- patient was diagnosed with left inguinal hernia, recurrent right inguinal hernia, thereby underwent open repair with implant of synthetic mesh.Per op notes, ¿in the left inguinal region hernia sac was identified and reduced.Synthetic mesh was placed in the defect and sutured.On the right inguinal region recurrent hernia was identified which was reduced and sutured¿.
|