|
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 mesh (bard flat mesh) (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device #2).Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.
|
|
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 implant date.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-may-2014) is considered to be a best estimate.This supplemental emdr represents the bard flat mesh (device 1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device 2).Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d.4, d.6b (date of explant), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d.6a (date of implant).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) on (b)(6) 2014 and bard/davol ventralight st mesh on (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against both the 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) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of bard flat mesh (device 1).Per op notes, "an umbilical incision was made, a bard flat mesh (device 1) was placed into the defect using prolene sutures." (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia thereby underwent robotic-assisted repair with the removal of mesh (device 1) and implant of ventralight st (device 2).Per op notes, "the small bowel that was adherent to the mesh and the mesh was excised.A ventralight st (device 2) was placed into the peritoneal cavity using sutures.".
|