|
The following was alleged by the patient's attorney: on (b)(6) 2006: the patient underwent repair of an surgical hernia.A bard/davol composix ex (device #1) was implanted in the patient during this repair.On (b)(6) 2012: the patient underwent revision surgery to repair her recurrent hernia.During the surgery the physician noted ¿the mesh had pulled away from the right abdominal wall.¿ in the course of the aforesaid revision procedure, the patient was implanted with a bard/davol ventrio (device #2).(b)(6) 2013: the patient underwent repair of an recurrent hernia.A bard/davol ventrio (device #3) was implanted in the patient during this repair on (b)(6) 2013: the patient underwent revision and removal surgery to repair recurrent hernia and small bowel obstruction.During the surgery the physician noted ¿small bowel was densely adherent to the recently placed mesh.There was a segment of mesh that was folded and the non-ptfe side was exposed.¿ and ¿i realized the mesh had dislodged from the site of anchoring and the mesh will be a problem in the future given its exposed non-ptfe side.¿ the patient continues to experience complications related to the mesh and will likely require additional surgeries to repair the damage from the mesh.The composis e/x (device #1) and ventrio (device #2 and device #3) implanted in the patient failed to reasonably perform as intended.The mesh caused serious injury and had to be surgically removed via invasive surgery, and necessitated additional invasive surgery to repair the hernia that the mesh was initially implanted to treat.The patient has been injured, sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering anxiety depression, disability, and impairment.
|