|
Attorney alleges that the patient underwent surgery for implant of an unspecified bard/davol 3dmax light mesh on (b)(6) 2016.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 3dmax light mesh.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 3dmax light mesh on (b)(6) 2016.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 3dmax light mesh.As reported, the attorney alleges patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with left recurrent direct and indirect inguinal hernia thereby underwent laparoscopic repair with the implant of 3dmax light mesh.Per operative notes, "the hernia sac was seen in the spermatic cord and another hernia sac medial to the inferior epigastric vessels.A pantaloon hernia, direct and an indirect was seen.The indirect sac was mobilized.A 3dmax light mesh was placed." (b)(6) 2016 - patient was diagnosed with left recurrent direct groin hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of synthetic mesh.Per operative notes, "a large direct defect was adherent to the cord.The previous laparoscopic mesh had migrated medially allowing for a direct hernia.The direct hernia sac was reduced and the floor of the inguinal canal was repaired.A synthetic 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: 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-jun-2015) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, a4, b3, b4, b5, b7, d4, 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.
|