|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st on (b)(6) 2010.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 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.Should additional information be provided, a supplemental emdr will be submitted.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 ventralight st on (b)(6) 2010.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 sustained personal injury, experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided:
(b)(6) 2012.Patient was diagnosed with ventral hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of ventralight st mesh.Per op notes, ¿a ventral hernia was seen left and inferior to the umbilicus and lateral to the rectus muscle.A ventralight st mesh was placed into peritoneal cavity and secured using sutures.¿
(b)(6) 2020.Patient was diagnosed with ventral spigelian hernia thereby underwent robotic to open repair with the implant of synthetic mesh.Per op notes, ¿there were multiple loops of small bowel and omentum were completely reduced.A spigelian hernia sac was encountered on the superior edge of prior mesh.A synthetic mesh was placed covering the defect into the space using sutures.¿.
|
|
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 date of implant.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-apr-2012) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot.No., udi no., expiry date), g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d.6a (date of implant).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.
|