|
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 mesh (bard flat mesh) on (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard mesh (bard flat mesh).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: on (b)(6) 2019 - patient was diagnosed with left indirect inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard pre-shaped mesh with keyhole (device 1).Per operative notes, "an oblique incision was made over the inguinal canal on the left side.The ilioinguinal nerve was identified and this was dissected free carefully.The hernia sac was dissected out.A bard pre-shaped mesh with keyhole was placed into the left inguinal region and secure it with sutures." on (b)(6) 2020 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent left inguinal hernia, left groin pain, adhesion thereby underwent open repair with hernia repair and lysis of adhesion.Per operative notes, ¿an oblique incision was made over the left groin through the prior incision site.Previously placed mesh was intact.Lysis of adhesion was performed.The defect was closed with sutures primarily.¿.
|
|
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.` 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-dec-2018) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10 h11.Corrected field: d1 (brand name).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.
|