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.

An article published last June in the Current Urology Reports Journal reviews the biochemical background that supports the use of synthetic mesh in Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) repair and presents data supporting the use of mesh repair as the most robust anatomic support. The authors also present inherent risks of this procedure and encourage patients to obtain information about risks and benefits of mesh implants. The present article summarizes the information presented in the Current Urology Reports Journal review article.

Just this past week, a jury in Atlantic County, New Jersey, awarded a South Dakota plaintiff, Linda Gross, $3.35 million dollars for injuries suffered from the implantation of Johnson & Johnson Ethicon vaginal mesh. A second phase will follow in which jurors will consider punitive damages as well. New Jersey law currently permits punitive damages of up to five times the compensatory damage amount. In a trial which took over six weeks, Gross v. Ethicon is the first of over 4,000 vaginal mesh lawsuits currently filed against Johnson & Johnson regarding their mesh products.

It is believed that over 200,000 women receive mesh implants each year, however as the number of implants has continued to rise, so has the number of complications reported by recipients. In fact, some estimates place the number of women who have suffered complications from their vaginal mesh implant as high as ten percent. Pelvic organ prolapse occurs when one or more pelvic organs shifts downward, in some cases intruding into the vaginal canal. As many as 25% of all women in the United States suffer some degree of pelvic organ prolapse and as the Baby Boomers continue to age it is believed the number of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries will continue to rise.

Over sixty years ago, surgical mesh was routinely used during hernia repair surgeries. By the 1970’s American gynecologists saw the potential in using this same type of mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse. Mesh was used in an “off-label” fashion by surgeons for decades during pelvic organ prolapse and by the mid-90’s it was becoming more and more common to use the same mesh used in hernia surgeries to treat SUI. Eventually, in 1996, the FDA approved surgical mesh specifically for use in stress urinary incontinence surgeries and in 2002 followed suit by approving surgical mesh specifically for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Over time surgical mesh has seen an evolution in the manner in which it is used as well as the various types of surgical mesh used.

This article will address the communications from the FDA regarding Urogynecologic mesh when used transvaginally in the correction of pelvic organ prolapse. The FDA issued the first Public Health Notification regarding this device in 2008, then in 2011 issued an update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh used in repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

This article will discuss the effectiveness of warnings issued by the FDA regarding the surgical use of urogynecologic mesh. Since the FDA first sent out a Public Safety Notification regarding mesh used in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery, they have been trying to get the word out to consumers and physicians about the potential risks involved.

This article describes the FDA warnings associated with urogynecologic mesh as used in pelvic organ prolapse transvaginal surgical applications, as based on a recently published Current Urology Reports study,

This article will discuss the history of pelvic organ prolapse surgery which dates back to Hippocrates as detailed in an article from Current Urology Reports titled Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Historical Perspective by Yanina Barbalat and Hari Tunuguntla (2012 13: 256-261). The surgical treatments have evolved radically through the ages for pelvic organ prolapse which is a relatively common condition resulting in over 400,000 surgeries for the condition annually.

This article discusses the historical procedures in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Based on an article in Current Urology Reports titled Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Historical Perspective by Yanina Barbalat and Hari Tunuguntla (2012 13:256-261), it is clear that surgical treatments for this disorder have shown a radical evolution through the ages.

This article will discuss the early history of surgical techniques for women who suffered pelvic organ prolapse. An article from Current Urology Reports titled Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Historical Perspective by Ynina Barbalat and Hari Tunuguntla (2012 13:256-261) details the history and surgical procedures involved in pelvic organ prolapse.

A recent study published in the International Urogynecology Journal discussed the relative merits of repairing prolapses using synthetic vaginal mesh or xenografts (a tissue graft from a donor of a different species) vs. using the natural pelvic tissues in the repair. The question the study aimed to answer was whether natural tissue augmentation actually improved the outcome of pelvic organ prolapse repair or whether using synthetic mesh resulted in an improved outcome.

As the final article in a four-part series regarding a discussion among lawyers of Transvaginal mesh litigation issues, the issue of timing regarding a vaginal mesh lawsuit is examined. There are several potential issues related to timing in these lawsuits, including the fact that while physicians are not currently considered defendants in these suits, that could possibly change for any doctor who recommended or implanted vaginal mesh in a patient after September, 2011.

This article is the third part in a discussion regarding the current multidistrict litigation against the manufacturers of vaginal mesh. Literally thousands of women have suffered serious complications after receiving vaginal mesh implants in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

As a continuation of this four part series of articles on Transvaginal Mesh Litigation, we will discuss the differences in mesh devices and the impact of the surgical methods used.

Earlier this year, all lawsuits regarding complications arising from the use of vaginal mesh were centralized into what is known as multidistrict litigation by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Multidistrict litigation is significantly different from a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuit involves a few plaintiffs suing on behalf of themselves and others who suffered similar harm, but who are not individually named in the lawsuit.

The FDA delivered a warning notice in 2011 to physicians and patients regarding transvaginal mesh complications. Over 2900 injuries were reported as a direct result of mesh implants between 2008 and 2010. The adverse reports covered mesh implants which were manufactured by nine different corporations.

Continuing the discussion of stress urinary incontinence from part one of this article we will detail the non-surgical options used in the treatment of SUI as well as discuss the current differences in SUI devices and POP kits currently on the market.

Women who have accidental leaks when they cough, laugh or sneeze are likely suffering from SUI which occurs when the sphincter—the valve to the bladder—cannot stay closed when there is pressure exerted on the abdomen. This pressure causes small amounts of urine to leak out and can be both a challenging and embarrassing problem to deal with.

When one or more of the pelvic organs shift downward, possibly even intruding into the vaginal canal, it is known as pelvic organ prolapse. The uterus, vagina, urethra, bladder or rectum can all drop from their proper position, causing a multitude of problems and issues. In the United States alone as many as one-quarter of all women have some level of pelvic organ prolapse.

In the past few years more and more women are coming forward to report complications—some of them quite severe—which resulted from surgeries involving the use of transvaginal mesh implants. Mesh has been implemented in surgeries as far back as the 1950’s, when it was used in hernia repair over the more traditional suture repair, with excellent results. In fact, when the mesh procedure was used there was a significantly lower recurrence of the hernias.

In light of the recent lawsuits filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh implants, many are wondering whether a safer alternative to using the potentially risky mesh exists. Mesh has been used since the 1950’s, primarily for hernia surgeries which are performed abdominally. Surgeons began expanding the use of the mesh to include surgeries on women for pelvic organ prolapse or stress incontinence.

The degree of your symptoms and whether or not the mesh has eroded into the vaginal walls or another surrounding organ will likely determine whether you are a candidate for revision surgery. It is important that you discuss your options thoroughly with your physician before deciding to undergo revision surgery to correct the problems caused by your transvaginal mesh implant.

Once the mesh is implanted in the body, it can move around leading to potentially serious injuries in the form of nearby organ punctures or frayed edges of the mesh eating into surrounding tissues. Some women have become septic as a result of the mesh implant, such severe infections, when not treated immediately, can lead to death in some cases.

Although mesh was originally used in hernia repairs as far back as the 1950’s, it was not until the 1970’s that gynecologists began implanting this metallic or polymeric screen to reinforce and support weakened muscle and tissue and treat pelvic organ prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse happens when an organ in the pelvic area drops or prolapses from its normal position and pushes against the walls of the vagina or other organs. Especially in cases where the muscles which hold the pelvic organs in place become weak or stretched from childbirth or surgery, pelvic organ prolapse can occur.

Even though some consumer advocate groups—such as Public Citizen—have called for the FDA to ban the marketing of transvaginal mesh for use in surgeries such as the repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence as yet there has been no definitive conclusions reached as to whether the use of mesh should be permanently discontinued.

In light of the many adverse events seen among women who have undergone transvaginal mesh surgeries in the past few years, the FDA is considering more stringent controls over approval of the device. Surgeons currently perform as many as 300,000 pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgeries every year, a large portion of those using mesh in the procedure.

As more information comes to light regarding the potential safety issues of the transvaginal mesh implants, women across the nation have more questions regarding the device. The FDA has yet to make a final determination on how mesh devices will be approved in the future and whether the current manufacturers will be subject to more rigorous scrutiny regarding the mesh device.

While the past three years have brought an influx of complications and problems related to the transvaginal mesh implant, the device has actually been in use for over half a century. Surgical mesh made of metallic or polymer screens was developed for use in abdominal hernia surgeries in the 1950’s, however gynecologists soon saw the advantages of using the mesh in the surgical repair of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

If you are a woman who has had a surgery in the past for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, and you think your surgeon might have used a mesh implant during that surgery, you need to know the facts surrounding the mesh products.

Recent FDA warnings regarding the controversial transvaginal mesh implant have resulted in a staunch defense of the device and its safety by the mesh manufacturers. Although the FDA has talked of reclassifying the mesh implant from a Class II to a Class III, requiring much more stringent clinical testing as well as human trials, Boston Scientific, one of the makers of the mesh is strongly urging against that potential change.

Mesh has been widely used in a variety of surgeries since the 1950’s, and was originally approved for use in abdominal hernia surgery. Surgeons began altering the size and shape of the mesh devices, using them in women’s surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. It was not until 1996 that the mesh was approved specifically for SUI surgeries and 2002 when it was approved for POP surgeries.