| Catalog Number |
0123790 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Defective Device (2588); Patient-Device Incompatibility (2682); Insufficient Device Problem Information (3190)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Adhesion(s) (1695); Hernia (2240); Injury (2348)
|
| Date of Event |
02/02/2011
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made regarding the bard/davol composix e/x (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.This emdr represents the bard/davol composix e/x (device #1).An additional emdr was submitted to represent the bard/davol sepramesh ip (device #2) under mdr_number 1213643-2019-04914.Should additional information be provided a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix e/x (device #1) on (b)(6) 2006 and sepramesh ip (device #2) on (b)(6) 2011.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device(s).As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol composix e/x (device #1) and sepramesh ip (device #2).As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made regarding the bard/davol composix e/x (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.This supplemental emdr represents the composix mesh e/x (device #1).An additional supplemental emdr was submitted to represent the sepramesh ip (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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix e/x (device #1) on (b)(6) 2006 and sepramesh ip (device #2) on (b)(6) 2011.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device(s).As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol composix e/x (device #1) and sepramesh ip (device #2).As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2006 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of composix e/x (device #1).Per op notes, "a composix e/x mesh (device #1) was placed to the anterior abdominal wall using sutures." (b)(6) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with incarcerated recurrent incisional hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the removal of mesh (device #1) and implant of sepramesh ip (device #2).Per op notes, "intra-abdominal adhesions were noted and these were dissected down.A sepramesh ip (device #2) was placed using protack.".
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|