|
Attorney alleges that on (b)(6) 2014 and (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol perfix light plug (device #1 and device #2).It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the two perfix light plug (device #1 and device #2).As reported, the attorney alleges product is defective and that the patient experienced emotional distress.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made regarding the bard/davol perfix light plug (device #1) used to treat the patient.The patient's attorney did allege surgical intervention; however, no details have been provided.No lot number has been provided therefore a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Addendum: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided.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-feb-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4, g1, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.This supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol perfix plug light (device #1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol perfix plug light (device #2).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.H3 other text: not returned.
|
|
Attorney alleges that on (b)(6) 2014 and (b)(6) 2015, the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol perfix light plug (device #1 and device #2).It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the two perfix light plug (device #1 and device #2).As reported, the attorney alleges product is defective and that the patient experienced emotional distress.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2014 - patient was diagnosed with right direct inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of perfix light plug (device #1).Per op notes, ¿hernia repair was done by placing a perfix light plug (device #1) into the cord and then precut sheet of mesh was placed across inguinal floor and tacked using suture.¿ (b)(6) 2015 ¿ patient was diagnosed with recurrent right inguinal hernia and left inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of perfix light plug (device #2).Per op notes, ¿adhesions were taken down.The mesh (device #1) had moved slightly laterally.Perfix light plug (device #2) was placed into this direct defect and tacked.A precut sheet of mesh was placed over the top of the previous mesh (device #1) and secured using suture.¿.
|