Because a good portion of the transvaginal lawsuits filed across America propose many of the same allegations against mesh manufacturers, a judicial panel assigned over twelve thousand cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Lawsuits have been grouped in MDLs involving comparable claims against common defendants in order to handle them more proficiently...

With over 18,000 transvaginal mesh cases currently pending, women who have suffered harm from a mesh implant used in stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery may be wondering whether they should file a suit against the manufacturer of their own mesh implant. Over 12,000 of those have been combined into an MDL before Judge Goodwin in West Virgina while others are state-filed cases...

The three primary areas the manufacturers are expected to claim in the thousands of lawsuits pending are that the manufacturers told the doctors of the potential risks, the manufacturers told the patients of the potential risks and the doctors also warned the patients of the risks involved.

Knowing how transvaginal mesh is constructed can help women implanted with the mesh to understand how it can potentially fail and how that failure can be documented.

If you are a recipient of transvaginal mesh used in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse and have experienced significant health issues, you may wonder just how dangerous your mesh or bladder sling really is. Those women who have suffered significant mesh erosion, the formation of adhesions, extrusion, fistula formation, infection or sepsis, vaginal shortening, nerve injury or scar formation which results in mesh contraction may be forced to undergo revision surgery.

There are different statutes of limitations—time limits within which a lawsuit must be filed—from one state to the next. Failure to file a transvaginal mesh lawsuit within the statutes of the state the injured person resides in could potentially bar recovery for claims related to yet another dangerous, substandard medical device. In most cases the statute of limitations begins to run from July, 2011 when the FDA announced there were risks of complications associated with the vaginal mesh when used for pelvic organ prolapse. Some of these complications include mesh erosion, chronic pelvic pain, infection, organ perforation, painful sexual intercourse and incontinence.

A review article published last June in the Current Urology Reports Journal assesses the outcomes and complications of using synthetic mesh materials in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair procedures, as well as the public health notification released by the FDA about these procedures. The present article summarizes the information presented in the review.

In June 2012, the Current Urology Reports Journal published a review article which assesses the risks and benefits of using synthetic mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) repair, giving particular emphasis to repairs of the posterior vaginal wall compartment. The present article summarizes the main points presented in the Current Urology Reports review.

The Current Urology Reports Journal published in June 2012 a review article that describes the different methods used to repair defects in the central and apical compartments utilizing synthetic meshes. The article also presents FDA’s (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) concerns and recommendations with respect to the use of meshes in these procedures. The present article summarizes the information published in the review.

Current Urology Reports Journal last June published a review article about the use of biological grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) repair. The authors present specific information on the repair of the different compartments’ prolapses (anterior, middle and posterior) as well as information on complications associated with these procedures. The present article summarizes the information presented in the Current Urology Reports Journal review article.