|
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 unspecified bard/davol sepramesh ip and davol plug mesh (x2) on (b)(6) 2015 and/or (b)(6) 2018.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the sepramesh ip.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) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with left inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, ¿an indirect hernia sac was noted and dissected free.A sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed and tacked using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2018 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia with pain and right inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of perfix plug (device 2 and 3).Per op notes, ¿an indirect and direct hernia sacs were noted on left and right inguinal regions.Both hernia sacs were reduced.Perfix plug (device 2) on left inguinal side and perfix plug (device 3) on right side were placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
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-jul-2014) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d.4, d.6a (date of implant), 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.
|