Currently, it is unknown to what extent the device may have caused or contributed to the reported event at this time.A manufacturing review was performed and found no evidence of a manufacturing related cause for the alleged event.The attorney alleges the patient experienced infection, however no details were provided related to an infection.The warning section in the 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." with the current information no conclusion can be made.If additional event and/or evaluation information is obtained, a follow up mdr will be submitted.Not returned to manufacturer.
|
The following is based on a review of limited medical records and the attorney's legal claim provided to davol by the patient's attorney: on (b)(6) 2009 - patient was diagnosed with pelvic prolapse with full thickness rectal prolapse and underwent a total pelvic mesh repair with implant of a bard/davol flat mesh.On (b)(6) 2010 - patient was diagnosed with protruding mesh at the vaginal cuff and underwent a transvaginal excision of the protruding mesh (bard/davol flat).The attorney's claim alleges outcomes attributed to device of pain, infection, incontinence and prolapse and continued medical treatment.
|