|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol bard mesh on (b)(6) 2013.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol bard mesh.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made to what extent the bard/davol may have caused or contributed to the reported event.The attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention;however no details have been provided.The cause of the patient postoperative complications cannot be determined at this time.No lot number has been provided therefore a review of the manufacturing records is not possible at this time.Information is limited.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-dec-2012) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no, expiry date, udi no.), 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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol bard mesh on (b)(6) 2013.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol bard mesh.It is alleged that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: on (b)(6) 2013 ¿ patient was diagnosed with left direct inguinal hernia thereby underwent open repair with implant of bard flat mesh (device #1).Per operative notes, ¿ there is no any evidence of a sac, the mild weakness in the floor of the inguinal canal was noted.A bard flat mesh (device #1) was placed and secured medially with sutures.¿ on (b)(6) 2015 - patient was diagnosed with symptomatic left recurrent inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of bard soft mesh (device #2).Per operative notes, ¿ there is no direct hernia noted, the indirect hernia sac was dissected away from the cord structures and then reduced.A bard soft mesh (device # 2) was placed in the floor of the inguinal area and tacked.¿.
|