|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard soft mesh on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard soft mesh.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
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.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard soft mesh on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard soft mesh.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2014 ¿ patient was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard soft mesh (device 1).Per operative notes, ¿a bard soft mesh (device 1) was placed and sutured to the tissues over the pubic tubercle.¿ (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent right inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralex st mesh (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿the previously placed bard soft mesh (device 1) was noted lateral to the defect.A ventralex st mesh (device 2) was placed within the preperitoneal space and secured to the superior aspect of the internal ring using sutures.¿.
|
|
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-sep-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., udi no, expiry date, corporate lot no.), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.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.
|