|
|
| Catalog Number |
0112730 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient Device Interaction Problem (4001)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Pain (1994); Hernia (2240)
|
| Date of Event |
02/09/2017
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Per plaintiff profile form (b)(4): attorney alleges that the patient had pain and hernia recurrence.Per medical records: on (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent right groin incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of perfix plug (device #1) and dart mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿the incisional hernia was identified and a small dart plug mesh (device #2) was placed in the internal ring superior to transversalis and inferior to ilioinguinal ligament.A synthetic mesh was trimmed and placed under external oblique fascia.An obvious fascial defect with protruding peritoneal fat was identified, repaired using trimmed perfix plug (device #1).Then, the synthetic mesh was placed over this and secured to the pubic tubercle and ilioinguinal ligament with sutures.¿ on (b)(6) 2017 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent right inguinal hernia and right groin pain thereby underwent robotic assisted laparoscopic repair with the explant of perfix plug (device #1), dart mesh (device #2) and implant of bard soft mesh (device #3).Per operative notes, ¿encountered both groin plugs and a small hernia noted in the femoral space.The medially placed groin plug (device #1) was excised from the left peritoneal pocket.Then, plug (device #2) which placed in the indirect space was excised, found attached inferior epigastric vessels on the right underlying plug.Recurrence also noted in the indirect space, a piece of bard soft mesh (device #3) placed covering all three hernia defects in the right pelvic floor and sutured.¿ attorney alleges that the patient had pain and hernia recurrence.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Based on the information provided, no conclusions can be made.Per medical records review, about 1 year 1 month post implant of dart mesh, patient was diagnosed with adhesions, pain and hernia recurrence thereby underwent repair with removal of the mesh.A review of the manufacturing records was performed and found that the lot was manufactured to specification.This emdr represents the mesh ¿dart (device #2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the perfix plug (device #1).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
|
|
|