|
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/davol kugel hernia patch on (b)(6) 2008.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the kugel hernia patch.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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol kugel hernia patch on (b)(6)2008.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the kugel hernia patch.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)2008 ¿ patient was diagnosed with left indirect inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of kugel patch.Per op notes, ¿the ilioinguinal nerve was dissected free.The hernia sac was noted.A medium oval kugel patch was placed in the preperitoneal space and secured to the inguinal ligament using sutures.¿
(b)(6)2020 ¿ patient was diagnosed with chronic left groin pain thereby underwent open repair with the removal of mesh.Per op notes, ¿the mesh was thick and heavy, found underneath the direct space in preperitoneal position.The mesh was densely stuck to the epigastric vessel and to spermatic cord structure.Part of mesh appeared to be in intensely scarred into peritoneal surface.The mesh was excised.¿.
|
|
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-mar-2008) is considered to be the best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d.6b (date of explant), e1, 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.
|