| Catalog Number |
5990011 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Hernia (2240); Insufficient Information (4580)
|
| Date of Event |
03/28/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight st.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2019.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the ventralight st.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) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with supraumbilical ventral hernia thereby underwent robotic assisted repair with the implant of ventralight st mesh using echo 2 ps.Per op notes, ¿a circular ventralight st mesh using echo 2 ps was placed over defect and sutured circumferentially.¿ (b)(6) 2022 ¿ patient was diagnosed with paraesophageal hernia and recurrent incarcerated incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the removal of mesh.Per op notes, ¿some omental adhesions incarcerated with defect and entire piece of mesh had pulled away from side was removed.¿.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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 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-sep-2018) is considered to be a best estimate.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|