|
Per information provided: on (b)(6) 2008 ¿ patent was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, ¿the hernia sac was closed and preperitoneal space was developed.A sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed in the standard position and transfixed with sutures.¿ on (b)(6) 2012 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of sepramesh ip (device 2).Per op notes, ¿the hernia sac was identified, and the right side of the mesh (device 1) had pulled away from the fascia and created a defect which allowed recurrent hernia to appear.A plane was created above the previous mesh (device 1) and a sepramesh ip (device 2) was placed in the intra-abdominal position with the smooth area towards the bowel and transfixed using sutures.¿ on (b)(6) 2016 ¿ patient was diagnosed with incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with the partial removal of mesh (device 1, 2).Per op notes, ¿the mesh (device 1, 2) incorporated into hernia sac was dissected down.There was more (device 1, 2) mesh on the anterior abdominal wall superiorly adherent to omentum.Adhesion was taken down.At least two-thirds of the circumference of the defect was already composed of mesh densely adherent into the fascia.The patient had failed two previous mesh repairs due to patient body habitus.¿ on (b)(6) 2019 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the partial removal of mesh (device 1, 2) and implant of ventrio st mesh (device 3).Per op notes, ¿extensive scarring was present.Two defects were divided and a previously placed polypropyelene type mesh (device 1, 2) was identified at superior aspect of mesh.Some of mesh (device 1, 2) not incorporated was removed.Adhesions were taken down.A ventrio st patch (device 3) was positioned within intraabdominal space and secured to previous mesh using sutures.¿.
|
|
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-dec-2011) is considered to be a best estimate.This emdr represents the bd sepramesh ip (device 2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bd 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.
|