|
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.This emdr represents the bard ventrio mesh (device 1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard ventrio mesh (device 2).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: on (b)(6) 2009 ¿ patient was diagnosed with incarcerated recurrent umbilical hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic to open repair with the implant of ventrio mesh (device # 2).Per operative notes, ¿a ventrio mesh (device 1) was rolled and attempted to be placed through a 12 mm trocar.With stay sutures and usage of the endostapler, there was difficulty in positioning the mesh, at this time created a tear in the mesh exposing polypropylene.At this time, the laparoscopic procedure was terminated, feeling that the exposed mesh has possibilities of adhesion, fistula formation, as such mesh (device #1) was removed.The procedure was converted to an open procedure, going through the midline.Then another ventrio mesh (device 2) was placed to the defect and tacked circumferentially.¿ on (b)(6) 2017 ¿ patient was diagnosed with the enterocutaneous fistula thereby underwent removal of infected mesh (device 2).Per operative notes, ¿a bowel with infected mesh (device 2) and fistula site was identified.Adhesions were lysed.The mesh (device 2) was excised and the small bowel resection performed.¿ note: this file represents device 1 which, per the medical records, during the (b)(6) 2009 procedure tore during attempted implant, therefore another mesh was implanted.
|