|
Per information provided: on (b)(6) 2013: patient was diagnosed with recurrent upper midline hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventralex mesh (device #1).Per operative notes,¿ at the level of fascia, the hernia sac was excised.A ventralex mesh (device #1) was inserted into the subfascial position and sutured." on (b)(6) 2015: patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional midline ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of sepramesh ip (device #2).Per operative notes, "the hernia sac was scarred and fibrotic.The hernia contents were excised from the sac.The adhesions in the entire length of the mesh and lateral sidewall was freed.A sepramesh ip (device #2) of approximate size was placed and sutured." on (b)(6) 2016: patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia and intestinal obstruction thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventrio st mesh (device #3).And removal of mesh (device #1 and #2).Per operative notes, ¿to the hernia sac two piece of previously placed mesh was detached from the left side of the fascia.The single loop of small intestine adherent to the old mesh caused small bowel obstruction.The lysis of adhesions was undertaken between bowel from old mesh and omentum from hernia sac.The mesh (device #1 and #2) was separated from the fascia and explanted.A ventrio st mesh (device #3) was secured in place and sutured." attorney alleges that the patient had adhesions, pain, hernia recurrence and emotional injuries.
|
|
Based on the information received, no conclusions can be made.Per medical records review, about 3 years 3 months post implant of ventralex mesh, patient was diagnosed with adhesions, obstruction, fibrosis, scar tissue, mesh migration and hernia recurrence thereby underwent repair with mesh removal.The instructions-for-use supplied with the device lists adhesions, mesh migration and hernia recurrence as possible complications.Review of manufacturing records confirms product was manufactured to specification.Note, the manufacturing date (15-sep-2010) is considered to be a best estimate.This emdr represents the bard/davol mesh ¿ ventralex (device #1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol sepramesh ip (device #2).Note: section a through f - the information provided by bard 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 bard.
|