|
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-may-2016) is considered to be a best estimate.This mdr represents the ventrio st mesh (device 2).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the 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.
|
|
Per information provided: (b)(6) 2008- patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia, thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of sepramesh ip (device 1).Per op notes, ¿a small hernia defect was identified in the abdominal region and was dissected.A sepramesh ip (device 1) was placed on the peritoneal space and sutured¿.(b)(6) 2017- patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia, thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with explant of sepramesh ip (device 1), implant of ventrio st mesh (device 2).Per op notes, ¿multiple adhesions of the small bowel to the underside of the sepramesh ip (device 1) in addition to omentum.Once the adhesions were lysed.The sepramesh ip (device 1) was completely explanted.A ventrio st mesh (device 2) was placed and tacked circumfascially¿.(b)(6) 2017- patient was diagnosed with small bowel obstruction, thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device 3).Per op notes, ¿a portion of omentum found adhered to the previously placed mesh (device 2).A small portion of omentum had herniated underneath and a small area of omentum found protruding through the mesh (device 2).A ventralight st using echo ps (device 3) was placed and tacked.¿.
|