|
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.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-jan-2017) 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, h11.Corrected field: d6a (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.H3 other text: not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified marlex (bard flat mesh) on 2017.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against marlex (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) 2017 ¿ patient was diagnosed with right inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard flat mesh.Per operative notes, ¿the hernia was dissected.A piece of bard flat mesh was placed and sutured at the pubic tubercle.¿ on (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with reducible left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair.Per operative notes, ¿a large indirect hernia sac was identified.The hernia sac was dissected.A synthetic mesh was placed and sutured to the conjoint tendon.¿.
|