|
Per information provided: on (b)(6) 2005 ¿ patient was diagnosed with upper midline large ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of kugel patch (device 1 and device 2).Per operative notes, ¿the old incision was reopened.There were two large defects up near the xiphoid and down towards the umbilicus.A two large kugel patches (device 1 and device 2) were placed in a horizontal manner and overlapped just very slightly.At the point of overlap, they were sutured together.¿ on (b)(6) 2011 ¿ patient was diagnosed with paraesophageal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of synthetic mesh.Per operative notes, ¿the hernia had been completely reduced.A large piece of mesh (device 1 and device 2) throughout the entirety of incision was identified.Patient did have a large amount of omentum protecting bowel below the mesh.Adhesions were lysed just get into the abdomen.Gastroscopy was done and the ge junction was identified intraabdominally.Partially took down the wrap, but in doing so developed a small gastrotomy in the lateral portion of the fundus involved in wrap.This was a pinhole, and bile was draining out of it.The entire paraesophageal hernia was reduced.The cruroplasty was done.The cruroplasty was then bolstered with a piece of synthetic mesh was placed and sutured to the retroperitoneum and crura around the perimeter of the mesh posterior to the esophagus.¿.
|
|
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 mdr represents the kugel patch (device 2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the kugel patch (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.
|