|
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/davol ventralight st 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.Not returned.
|
|
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-jan-2020) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d6b, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6,h10, h11.Corrected field: d1 (brand name) and pma/510(k).This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol ventralight st using echo ps (device 1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device 2).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/davol ventralight st (x2) on (b)(6) 2020 and (b)(6) 2021.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the both 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) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent robotic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device #1).Per op notes, "a ventralight st using echo ps (device #1) was placed and sutured." (b)(6) 2021 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with explant of ventralight st using echo ps (device #1) and implant of ventralight st mesh (device #2).Per op notes, "lysis of adhesions was performed.The prior mesh (device #1) had pulled way and folded was explanted and a ventralight st mesh (device #2) was placed and sutured.".
|