|
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.
|
|
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.H11: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.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-dec-2019) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d3 (manufacturer), d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d6.B, g1, 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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard mesh (bard flat mesh) on (b)(6) 2020.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against 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) 2020 ¿ patient was diagnosed with umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant bard flat mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿hernia defect was identified and closed with sutures.A bard flat mesh (device #1) was placed and secured with sutures.¿ on (b)(6) 2023 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent umbilical hernia thereby underwent open repair with removal of bard flat mesh (device #1) and implant of ventralex mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿the hernia was noted.The mesh was seen adherent to the hernia sac and omentum.The hernia sac and previously placed mesh (device #1) was removed.The ventralex mesh (device #2) was placed underneath the fascia and secured with sutures.".
|