|
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.Not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol 3dmax mesh on (b)(6) 2018.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against 3dmax 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.Addendum: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the brand name and pma/510(k).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-oct-2017) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., expiry date, udi no.), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected fields: d1 (brand name), g4 (pma/510(k)).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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol 3dmax mesh on (b)(6) 2018.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against 3dmax 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) 2018 ¿ patient was diagnosed with bilateral inguinal hernia thereby underwent robotic repair with implant of 3dmax light meshes (device 1 ¿ right) and (device 2 ¿ left).Per operative notes, ¿an extra-large 3dmax light mesh (device 1-right) was placed over the right sided defect and sutured.A large 3dmax light mesh (device 2-left) was placed over the left sided defect and sutured to the pubis and slightly overlapped the right sided hernia.¿ (b)(6) 2018 ¿ patient was diagnosed with large seroma right scrotum thereby underwent open repair.Per operative notes, ¿a large seroma was noted and drained.(note: there is no visualization of 3dmax light meshes (device 1 and device 2) in this procedure).
|