|
Per information provided: on (b)(6) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of the sepramesh ip (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿a bard sepramesh ip (device #1) was placed and sutured.¿ on (b)(6) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿hernia sac was dissected.A ventralight st mesh (device #2) was placed and sutured.¿ on (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with post laparoscopic gastric bypass, symptomatic gred, symptomatic hiatal hernia thereby underwent open repair with removal of symptomatic hiatal hernia.On (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with small bowel obstruction thereby underwent repair with lysis of adhesion, exploratory laparotomy.On (b)(6) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with symptomatic gerd, symptomatic hiatal hernia, recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent robotic assisted repair with implant of the ventralight st w/ echo mesh (device #3).Per operative notes, ¿hernia sac was dissected free.A ventralight st w/ echo mesh (device #3) was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
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-feb-2011) is considered to be a best estimate.This emdr represents the bard/davol ventralight st mesh (device #2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol sepramesh ip (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.
|