|
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 ventralight st with echo on (b)(6) 2016.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight st with echo.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.Attorney alleges that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2016 ¿ patient was diagnosed with umbilical hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of bard soft mesh (device 1).Per operative notes, ¿a piece of bard soft mesh (device 1) was placed into the retrorectus space and sutured.¿ (b)(6) 2016 ¿ patient was diagnosed with small bowel obstruction and recurrent hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿a ventralight st using echo ps (device 2) was placed into the abdomen and attach it to the anterior abdominal wall and tacked.¿ (b)(6) 2018 ¿ patient was diagnosed with multiply recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with partial removal of (device 1 and device 2).Per operative notes, ¿the retrorectus piece of mesh and intraperitoneal mesh was noted.Both pieces of mesh were cut in half.Adhesions were lysed.The mesenteric border of the bowel was scarred.A piece of synthetic mesh was placed and secured 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-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7,d3,d4(product catalog no., udi no, expiry date, corporate lot no.), d.6b (date of explant), 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.
|