|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix l/p on (b)(6) 2009.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol composix l/p.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.
|
|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol composix l/p on (b)(6) 2009.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against the bard/davol composix l/p.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:
(b)(6) 2009 - patient was diagnosed with two ventral hernias thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with implant of composix l/p mesh (device 1 and 2).Per op notes, ¿lysis of adhesions was performed.First hernia sac was identified in the right lower quadrant and the contents were reduced.A composix l/p mesh (device 1) was placed and sutured.Another hernia was identified on subxiphoid region and its contents were reduced.A composix l/p mesh (device 2) was placed and sutured.¿
(b)(6) 2010 - patient was diagnosed with recurrent right lower quadrant ventral hernia, adhesions and abdominal pain thereby underwent open repair with excision of composix l/p (device 1) and implant of biological mesh.Per op notes, ¿dense adhesions present between the recurrent hernia on the rlq were taken down.A large hernia sac with loops of small bowel adherent to it.Adhesions to the previously placed mesh (device 1) were taken down.The bowel contents were reduced.The hernia sac was excised.Thick scar between omentum and right upper abdominal wall were excised.The internal hernia contents were reduced.The previous mesh (device 1) was excised and removed.A biological mesh was placed and sutured.¿.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges 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:
h11: this supplemental emdr is submitted to document additional information provided and to correct the implant date.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-may-2008) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d.6b (date of explant), g1, g3, g6, h2, h4, h6, h10, h11.Corrected field: d.6a (date of implant).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.
|