|
Catalog Number 0112680 |
Device Problems
Defective Device (2588); Extrusion (2934)
|
Patient Problems
Erosion (1750); Internal Organ Perforation (1987); Prolapse (2475)
|
Event Date 03/20/2007 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Addendum to the previous report.
This supplemental emdr is being sent due to the allegation of organ perforation which is considered a life-threatening outcome attributed to adverse event.
Mesh extrusion was also alleged in the attorney's legal claim, mesh extrusion is listed as a known adverse reaction in the instructions-for-use.
To date no medical records have been provided which indicate any type of organ perforation experienced by the patient.
A manufacturing review was performed which found no anomalies during the manufacturing of the device.
With the current information available no definitive conclusion can be made.
If additional event and/or evaluation information is obtained, a follow up emdr will be submitted.
Updated fields.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following is based on a review of medical records and the attorney's legal claim provided to davol by the patient's attorney: on (b)(6) 2002 - the patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and adhesiolysis.
No additional details provided.
On (b)(6) 2003 - the patient was diagnosed with a cystocele and underwent implant of a pubovaginal sling using a bard flat mesh, cystocele repair and open suprapubic tube placement followed by cystoscopy.
On (b)(6) 2007 - the patient was diagnosed with foreign body in her vagina.
The patient was noted to have a "less than 1cm vaginal mesh (davol flat) erosion at the apex of the anterior vaginal wall.
" the patient underwent excision of a greater than a 1x1 cm piece of flat mesh.
The attorney's legal claim alleges the patient experienced pain, extrusion, prolapse, dyspareunia and organ perforation.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Currently, it is unknown to what extent the device may have caused or contributed to the reported event.
A manufacturing review was performed and found no anomalies during the manufacturing process.
With the current information available no definitive 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.
Not returned to manufacturer.
|
|
Event Description
|
The following is based on a review of medical records provided to davol by the patient's attorney: on (b)(6) 2002 - the patient underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and adhesiolysis.
No additional details provided.
On (b)(6) 2003 - the patient was diagnosed with a cystocele and underwent implant of a pubovaginal sling using a bard flat mesh, cystocele repair and open suprapubic tube placement followed by cystoscopy.
On (b)(6) 2007 - the patient was diagnosed with foreign body in her vagina.
The patient was noted to have a "less than 1cm vaginal mesh (davol flat) erosion at the apex of the anterior vaginal wall.
" the patient underwent excision of a greater than a 1x1 cm piece of flat mesh.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|