|
Attorney alleges the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix kugel hernia patch on (b)(6) 2007.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 kugel hernia patch.As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
Attorney alleges the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix kugel hernia patch on (b)(6) 2007.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 kugel hernia patch.As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2007 - patient had incisional hernia thereby underwent repair with the implant of kugel patch.(note: there is no op notes were provided for this procedure in medical records) (b)(6) 2011 - patient was diagnosed with multiple recurrent incisional hernia, chronically infected mesh thereby underwent open repair with the removal of kugel patch.Per operative notes, ¿the abdominal scar and sinus tract were excised.A incisional hernia in the upper midline to the left of previously placed kugel patch.There were two perforations and a large calcified subcutaneous nodules which were likely regions of previous suture granulomas.A infected previously placed kugel patch was removed.A piece of synthetic mesh was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges injuries and subsequent surgery; however, no details have been provided.No lot number has been provided; therefore, a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Addendum: h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct brand name and pma/510(k) #).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-aug-2007) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4, d.6b (date of explant), g1, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d.1 (brand name), g4 (pma/510(k) #).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.
|