|
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-mar-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.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.
|
|
Per information provided by patient¿s attorney and review of patient medical records: attorney alleges per short form that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralex st on (b)(6) 2015.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against ventralight st.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.(b)(6) 2015 ¿ patient was diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis, adhesions, umbilical hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of ventralex st mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿the gallbladder is removed.The hernia sac was excised.A medium ventralex st mesh (device #1) was placed in the defect using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2015 ¿ patient had seroma and diagnosed with infected mesh, large recurrent umbilical hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the removal of ventralex st mesh (device #1) and an implant of xenmatrix ab mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿seroma was aspirated.A minimal intraabdominal adhesion from omentum to the periumbilical area, extraperitoneal mesh were lysed.The ventralex st mesh (device #1) was excised completely.A xenmatrix ab mesh (device #2) was placed through the umbilical defect and fixated using capsure staplers.¿.
|