|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention; however, no details have been provided.No lot number has been provided; therefore, a review of the manufacturing records is not possible.Should additional information be provided a supplemental emdr will be submitted.Not returned.
|
|
At this time no conclusions can be made.The patient's attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent 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-nov-2013) is considered to be a best estimate.Updated fields: a2, b3, b4, b5, b6, b7, d4 (product catalog no., corporate lot no., udi no., expiry date), d6.B(explant date), 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 the implant of an unspecified bard/davol ventrio st on (b)(6) 2014.As reported, the patient is making a claim for an adverse patient outcome against ventrio st.Attorney alleges that the patient had subsequent surgical intervention due to the hernia mesh device.It is also alleged that the patient experienced emotional distress and the device was defective.Addendum per additional information provided: (b)(6) 2014 ¿ patient was diagnosed with small bowel obstruction; massive incarcerated ventral hernia thereby underwent open repair with the implant of ventrio st mesh.Per op notes, ¿the defect was noted and a piece of ventrio st mesh was attached to fascia using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2017 ¿ patient was diagnosed with chronic abdominal wall abscess; recurrent incarcerated incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair.Per op notes, ¿the abscess cavity was noted and adhesions from omentum and mesh were taken down.Recurrent incisional hernia inferior to mesh was identified.The mesh was well incorporated into abdominal wall and not in direct contact with infection.A piece of biological mesh was placed and buttressed with previous mesh using sutures.¿ (b)(6) 2017 ¿ patient was diagnosed with abscess, infected mesh, reducible recurrent ventral incisional hernia thereby underwent open repair with the removal of mesh.Per op notes, ¿the adhesions were dissected from the undersurface of the mesh.The mesh was removed in totality along with infected.A synthetic mesh was sewn to fascial edges circumferentially.¿.
|