|
Attorney alleges that on (b)(6) 2015 or (b)(6) 2018, the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st (device #1) or an unspecified bard/davol ventrio st (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 ventralight st (device #1) and ventrio st (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 ventrio st (device #2) 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-oct-2016) is considered to be a best estimate.This supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol ventrio st (device #2).Additional supplemental emdr represents the bard/davol ventralight st w/ echo (device #1).Updated fields: a2 b2, b4, b5, b7, d4, (product catalog no, corporate lot no, expiry date, udi no), d.6a, g1, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10.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) 2015 or (b)(6) 2018, the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventralight st (device #1) or an unspecified bard/davol ventrio st (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 ventralight st (device #1) and ventrio st (device #2).As reported, the attorney alleges product is defective and that the patient experienced emotional distress.Addendum per additional information provided: on (b)(6) 2015, patient was diagnosed with incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of ventralight st using echo ps (device #1).Per operative notes, "the adhesions were lysed extensively.The omentum adhesions were taken down.The hernia defect was identified and reduced.A ventralight st using echo ps (device #1) was placed and tacked." on (b)(6) 2018, patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of ventrio st (device #2).Per operative notes, "the old scar tissue was excised.The previously placed mesh appeared to be curled up.The curled portion was straightened and secured it with prolene sutures.The hernia defect was identified and repaired with ventrio st (device #2) and sutured.".
|