|
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 perfix plug on (b)(6) 2012.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the perfix plug.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) 2012 - patient was diagnosed with bilateral inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of perfix plug for right inguinal hernia and synthetic mesh for left inguinal hernia.Per op notes, "in the right groin defect, a perfix plug was placed and sutured.In the left groin defect, a synthetic mesh was placed and sutured." (b)(6) 2022 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent bilateral inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of synthetic mesh for recurrent left inguinal hernia.Per op notes, "in the right side, scarring was noted.On left side, the prior synthetic mesh was folded on itself and wadded up.A synthetic mesh was 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-2010) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no, corporate lot no, expiry date, udi no), 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.H3 other text: not returned.
|