|
Catalog Number 0112680 |
Device Problems
Defective Device (2588); Extrusion (2934)
|
Patient Problems
Erosion (1750); Unspecified Infection (1930); Internal Organ Perforation (1987)
|
Event Date 01/20/2012 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Currently, it is unknown whether the device may have caused or contributed to the reported event.Medical records were limited to the patient's implant tracking log only.The patient's legal fact sheet alleges the patient experienced extrusion, infection and fistula formation.Both extrusion and fistula formation are listed as known possible adverse reactions in the instructions-for-use.In regards to infection, the warning section of the instructions-for-use states "if an infection develops, treat the infection aggressively.The prosthesis may not have to be removed.An unresolved infection, however, may require removal of the prosthesis.¿ a manufacturing review was performed and found no evidence of a manufacturing related cause for the alleged event.If additional event and/or evaluation information is obtained, a follow up mdr will be submitted.The information provided by bard 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 bard.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following is based on a review of limited medical records, the patient's legal fact sheet and the attorney's legal claim provided to davol by the patient's attorney: on (b)(6) 2008--patient underwent an unspecified pelvic procedure with implant of a bard/davol 3" x 6" "monofilament polypropylene" flat mesh.On (b)(6) 2012--patient was diagnosed with a rectocele first to second degree with erosion and underwent a partial explant of the mesh.Additionally the patient's legal fact sheet alleges the patient experienced pain, erosion, extrusion, infection, urinary problems, bowel problems, fistulae, recurrence, bleeding, dyspareunia, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring and organ perforation.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Addendum to the previous report.Based on a review of medical records, the patient underwent a revision procedure on (b)(6) 2012.There was no indication in the medical records provided of any type of explant of the flat mesh as was originally alleged.With the current information available no conclusion can be made.If additional event and/or evaluation information is obtained, a follow up mdr will be submitted.The information provided by bard 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 bard.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following is based on a review of medical records provided to davol by the patient's attorney: (b)(6) 2008 - patient underwent a posterior colporrhaphy with use of a bard/davol flat mesh.On (b)(6) 2012 - the patient underwent a revision procedure in which redundant vaginal mucosa around the erosion area was then excised.No mention of the previously placed flat mesh in the operative dictation.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|