With the current controversy surrounding the use of transvaginal mesh kits for the reparatory surgery of prolapsed pelvic organs, alternatives methods are constantly being explored.  Recently, polypropylene slings have been used instead of more traditional transvaginal mesh kits using other synthetic bases for their designs, utilizing a tension-free sling that is aimed at causing fewer complications than previous products.  A recent study conducted by Katlheen Kobashi and Fred Govier aimed at examining the possible complications that could occur due to the use of polypropylene slings for the repair of prolapsed pelvic organs.

Their study reported that, “two patients described persistent vaginal discharge 6 weeks postoperatively, including 1 who complained primarily of partner discomfort during sexual intercourse. Two patients were completely asymptomatic and mesh erosion was discovered at routine physical examination 6 weeks postoperatively.  Pelvic examination demonstrated vaginal exposure of the mesh in all cases.”  These results indicate that while some complications are obvious as it causes discomfort and physiological symptoms easily identified by doctors during examination, some complications go unnoticed for a significant time before they are discovered.

According to this research, polypropylene slings have similar adverse effects to that of other tested methods for correcting prolapsed pelvic organs, resulting in minor to serious complications.  These complications can lead to unnecessary pain and discomfort for patients.

If you or a loved one used transvaginal mesh and experienced the side-effects described above, or another complication of transvaginal mesh, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation for your injuries through a transvaginal mesh lawsuit.

For a free, no-obligation case consultation, please do not hesitate to contact our team of transvaginal mesh lawyers (855) 452-5529 or by e-mail at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us.

We have the experience, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help!

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about transvaginal mesh.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition among aging women, characterized by the shifting of pelvic organs, which push up against the vaginal walls.  The condition may occur as a result of surgery or childbirth and oftentimes causes pain or discomfort.  One method of treating prolapse is to use a synthetic polypropylene mesh to provide mechanical support for the failing inner vaginal walls, and various different kinds of meshes have been created for this procedure.  The article discussed below states, “High stiffness meshes, i.e. those resistant to stretch when deformed, have been purported to directly influence the rate of mesh-related complications.”

A mechanistic study titled “Vaginal Degeneration Following Implantation of Synthetic Mesh with Increased Stiffness” was conducted by Liang et al. and published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.  The purpose of the study was “To compare the impact of the prototype prolapse mesh Gynemesh PS with that of two new-generation lower stiffness meshes, UltraPro and SmartMesh, on vaginal morphology and structural composition.”  This particular study employed a non-human primate model; subjects were parous rhesus macaques, all with similar Pelvic organ Prolapse scores.  Different kinds of meshes were implanted into each subject, and the outcomes were compared.

The authors of the study concluded that “The most significant findings of this study were that the stiffer and heavier mesh Gynemesh PS had a profoundly negative impact on vaginal morphology and the structural proteins that maintain the integrity of the vagina relative to sham-operated controls.”  Sham-operated controls, in this study, refers to subjects that underwent the same surgical procedure without implantation of the mesh.   The authors go on to state that stiffer, heavier, and less porous meshes were more commonly associated with negative outcomes for the subjects.  In this study specifically, Gynemesh PS was associated with the highest rate of complications, whereas UltraPro and SmartMesh did not show the same degeneration of vaginal tissues.

Sadly, many women use transvaginal mesh kits without knowing the rate of failure associated with TVM, and/or without being informed of the possible harmful side-effects TVM use carries.  Because of this lack of oversight by TVM manufacturers, vaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed in great number around the world.

If you or a loved one used TVM and experienced vaginal mesh erosion, vaginal mesh-related infection, or another TVM complication, please do not hesitate to contact our team of vaginal mesh lawyers at the information provided below.

(855) 452-5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

We have the experience and resources required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help!

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Transvaginal Mesh.

Stress urinary incontinence is a condition characterized by the inability to hold urine while under physical stress, even as mild as coughing or sneezing.  One method of treating such cases, which has rapidly grown more popular recently, involves the use of a sling.  The sling is used in order to avoid complications associated with the process of grafting autologous tissues (tissues from another part of the patient’s body).  On the other hand, purely synthetic materials are known to be durable, but put the patient at risk of suffering vaginal and urethral erosion.  Therefore, hybrid systems have been created to avoid such problems.  “The BioArc sling system (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, Minn) is a hybrid sling system that uses polypropylene mesh for fixation and a biological graft for suburethral support.”

Gary Bong and Eric Rovner published a study titled “Vaginal Erosion After Hybrid Midurethral Sling Placement” through the Department of Urology in the Medical University of South Carolina.  The report is a case study, covering the first case of vaginal erosion after implantation of the midurethral hybrid sling.

The patient was a healthy 31 year old woman without any unusual prior medical or surgical history.   She had undergone a previous procedure and suffered from dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse due to medical or physiological causes) and persistent sensation of a vaginal “bulge” 5 months after sling placement.  The doctors observed tenderness along the vaginal wall and visible erosion of the mesh sling.  After re-intervention, in which the previous sling was removed and replaced with a new one, the patient’s symptoms no longer persisted.   She was continent and had resumed normal intercourse with her husband.

Given that this was the first reported case study of its nature, the authors could not come to any definite conclusions.  They did note, however, that “The hybrid BioArc system has been marketed as a technique for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence that combines the ease of placement and durability of polypropylene mesh with the biologically compatible nature of autologous fascia and its low erosion rates.”   However, the combined use of autologous materials with polypropylene mesh did not prevent erosion “it is likely that it was the polypropylene component that was responsible for the erosion seen in this case”.  The authors concluded, in part, by asserting that future clinical trials are necessary to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of this system.

Since the risks associated with TVM use have gone undisclosed to patients and doctors alike, a number of lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of some TVM products.  If you or a loved one used TVM and believe you may have a case, please do not hesitate to contact our team of TVM lawyers.   We have the experience, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve, even from the largest of pharmaceutical companies.

(855) 452-5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Transvaginal Mesh.

It is estimated that 300,000 pelvic organ prolapse related surgeries are performed in the United States every year.  Pelvic organ prolapse is a global wide health issue for women.  High failure rates are seen with anterior surgical repair of cystocele or anterior wall prolapse.  These procedures may constrict and impair vaginal anatomy.  Some doctors recommend that paravaginal repairs should be performed abdominally or laparoscopically for providing sounder anatomic support.  New methods for treating anterior vaginal prolapse have been created, showing to have higher cure rates than traditional methods.  These new methods require complex dissections and surgical techniques which may come with their own complications.  Author Robert D. Moore, from the International Urogynecological Association, wrote an article called “Prospective Multicenter Trial assessing type 1, Polypropylene Mesh placed Via Transobuturator Route for the Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Prolapse”, where he states that “The use of synthetic mesh is considered the gold standard for treatment of vault prolapse abdominally with sacral colpopexy [4]. More recently, grafts have been used vaginally to treat prolapse, including the anterior compartment, in attempts to try to reproduce the success that mesh has been shown to have with sacral colpopexy. Various methods have been described and most have been shown to have higher cure rates than traditional repairs.”

A review written by A. Cochrane in 2008, supports the use of mesh graft in the anterior compartments.  The review reported a higher rate of recurrent prolapse after anterior colporrhaphy than after mesh repair.  Robert D. Moore continues to explain “The transobturator space has been shown to be a safe space for the placement of tension-free tape slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence and has simplified the technique of this procedure [7, 8]. The space has also been more recently used to assist with anterior wall mesh placement. De Tayrac was the first to describe its use in cystocele repair by securing the anterior arms of a tension free graft; however, no apical attachment of the graft was described.”  The Perigee System, a minimally invasive treatment option, was created to place an anterior wall graft for cystocele repair.

Some studies suggest an 18-month cure rate for 93.5 percent of the patient’s using this procedure, which is OK but not sufficient, given that around 50 percent of women who have multiple children may develop pelvic organ prolapse.

In light of all the research showing the danger of transvaginal mesh, many manufacturers of TVM products have failed to notify customers of the risks associated with their products.  And as such, transvaginal mesh lawsuits have been filed around the world.

If you or a loved one used transvaginal mesh and experienced a complication of vaginal mesh or suffered TVM recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse, you may be eligible to file a transvaginal mesh lawsuit. For more information or a free, no-obligation case consultation, contact our team of transvaginal mesh lawyers at the information provided below.

(855) 452-5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Transvaginal Mesh.

The use of transvaginal mesh kits in pelvic floor reconstruction surgery has begun to be questioned clinically as the number of cases of complications and adverse effects has steadily risen.  The  complications can lead to pain for not only the patient but for their significant others during intercourse, often times leading patients to require further corrective surgery.  Recently, a new complication has been reported by numerous patients, involving the erosion of the tissue surrounding synthetic mesh inside the patient’s body.

A recent study titled, “Diagnosis, Management and Prognosis of Vaginal Erosion after Transobturator Suburethral Tape Procedure Using a Nonwoven Thermally Bonded Polypropylene Mesh,” conducted by Domingo, et. al., focused efforts on understanding the possible outcomes of the erosion of the vagina following transvaginal mesh within patients.  The article, as seen in The Journal of Urology aimed at studying transvaginal mesh erosion in patients undergoing surgery to treat urinary incontinence in women.  They reported that, “of the 65 patients 9 (13.8%) were diagnosed with vaginal erosion at the vaginal incision during a relatively long postoperative period (mean 290 days). All presented with vaginal discharge and 1 had a severe complication (obturator abscess). Complete mesh removal was necessary in 8 patients and only 2 (22%) had recurrent stress urinary incontinence.”

Thers results confirm the current suspicions surrounding the use of transvaginal mesh in patients, as the study reports serious complications as well as failures that end in recurrent symptoms.  This study, along with others, has shown that numerous patients have become victims of the dangerous transvaginal mesh products currently in clinical use.

If you or a loved one has suffered from any complications following surgery involving transvaginal mesh kits, you may be eligible for a transvaginal mesh lawsuit.  Our lawyers want to offer you a free, no-obligations consultation to help you receive compensation for the suffering you have endured.

Contact us today either by phone at (855) 452-5529 or by e-mail at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us to see how we can help!

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Transvaginal Mesh.

Currently, synthetic mesh kits are being more commonly used in reparatory surgery for prolapsed pelvic organs.  However, as stated by Lawrence Lin, et. al., in a recent article titled, “Dyspareunia and Chronic Pelvic Pain after Polypropylene Mesh Augmentation for Transvaginal Repair of Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse,” there seems to be no clinical research on the safety of such kits.  The researchers state, “There is a growing use of synthetic mesh placement in the vagina without sufficient evidence of clinical studies on patient safety for these procedures.”

Lin and his team focused on the fact that there is very little attention paid towards transvaginal mesh kits in their postoperative complications.  The study summarized the experience of a patient, whom after receiving a synthetic mesh kit for anterior prolapsed pelvic organ repair, suffered from extreme dyspareunia and debilitating pelvic pain.  The patient, after being surgically implanted with transvaginal mesh experienced pain and discomfort postoperatively, failed to have a positive response from medical therapy, eventually leading to further surgery to remove the mesh kit.

Cases similar to this patient’s have emerged in alarming numbers, with patients reporting similar complications and often times requiring further surgery to repair the damage caused by transvaginal mesh kits.  If you or a loved one has experienced any sort of complication following surgery involving transvaginal mesh kits, then it may be the result of the lack of clinical research done on that product’s safety and efficacy; you may be entitled to compensation for the suffering you have endured.

Contact me, Justinian Lane, at the information below and let me help you.  I have the experience, skills, and resources required to win the justice you deserve in a transvaginal mesh lawsuit.

For more information, please feel free to call or e-mail our team at the information provided below.

(855) 452-5529

justinian@dangerousdrugs.us

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have any questions about Transvaginal Mesh.

Recently (2012) an article published in Obstetrics and Gynecology has reviewed the frequency with which complications surrounding surgery occur as well as how often reoperation is required following “prolapse repairs using mesh and biologic grafts.”[1]

By analyzing “all female members of [the healthcare provider] Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California and Hawaii who underwent sling procedures or pelvic organ prolapse surgeries using implanted grafts or mesh between September 1, 2008, and May 31, 2010,”[2] the Nguyen et al. (2012) team was able to secure 4,142 test subjects whose mean age was 57, and who in all underwent “3,747 slings and 1,508 prolapse repair procedures using implanted prostheses,”[3] such as transvaginal mesh.  Transvaginal mesh can be made of several substances, most commonly polypropylene or silicone.  Recently, it has been documented that silicone mesh causes vaginal mesh erosion more than 20% of the time, and that polypropylene transvaginal mesh causes vaginal mesh erosion more than 10% of the time.

While this study found that mesh erosion occurred less frequently in this group of people, the authors still stated that “Reoperations for mesh-related complications occured most often after transvaginal mesh placement in the anterior vagina,”[4] a common site for the use of transvaginal mesh in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Due to the fact that several manufacturers of transvaginal mesh have failed to adequately warn doctors and patients of the risks associated with transvaginal mesh, a number of transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently being filed.  If you used transvaginal mesh and experienced a mesh-related infection, vaginal mesh erosion, or another transvaginal mesh side effect, you may be entitled to financial compensation for the injuries you have sustained through no fault of your own.  For more information, please do not hesitate to contact our team of vaginal mesh lawyers.

For a free, no-obligation case consultation, you may contact our offices by phone at (855) 452-5529 or by e-mail at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us.  Call today and see how we can help!


[1] Nguyen, JN et al. “Perioperative Complications and Reoperations After Incontinence and Prolapse Surgeries Using Prosthetic Implants” Obstetrics and Gynecology Vol. 119, No. 3. March 2012. 539-46

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

A report titled “Dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain after polypropylene mesh augmentation for transvaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse” published in a 2007 edition of The International Urogynecology Journal by Lawrence L. Lin et al. illustrates the case of one woman who used transvaginal mesh following pelvic organ prolapse and suffered particularly unfortunate side-effects.

While the risk rate for vaginal mesh erosion has been found to be as high as 20% by some studies, and other studies have linked vaginal mesh use to an increased risk for bacterial infections, few have illustrated well the side effects of dyspareunia and/or chronic pelvic pain, ailments that effect many users of transvaginal mesh.

The woman discussed in the Lin et al. paper was 55-years-old at the time of her pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery that required the use of a 6 x 4 cm piece of polypropylene transvaginal mesh.  Previous studies have found that polypropylene transvaginal mesh results in vaginal mesh erosion at a rate of 10-13%.  At the time she presented to Lin et al., she was 59-years-old and had been experiencing chronic, debilitating pelvic pain for years, and had more recently begun experiencing dyspareunia.[1]

Here is an excerpt from the Lin et al. paper where Lin discusses the course of this woman’s treatment:

“We opted to treat the patient conservatively with more vaginal estrogen therapy and oral anti-inflammatory medications for 4 months. … After extensive counseling with the patient about the risks and the benefits of surgical excision, we believed that the risks of surgery outweighed the benefits and we recommended that conservative management was her best option. The patient’s chronic pelvic pain symptoms remained persistent and unchanged after conservative treatments, and she failed to keep further follow up appointments.”[2]

Commenting on this case more broadly, Lin et al. write “In our case report, the 6×4-cm polypropylene mesh was adherent to the base of the bladder. The anatomic support of the synthetic mesh in the anterior compartment was excellent; however, the patient’s chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia were now more debilitating than her previous bladder prolapse,”[3] suggesting that using transvaginal mesh to correct a medical condition may be more painful and debilitating than the condition itself.

As a result of such high rates of complications associated with transvaginal mesh and a lack of sufficient risk rate disclosure on the part of transvaginal mesh manufacturers, many transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently being filed.  If you used transvaginal mesh and experienced side effects such as those described above, vaginal mesh erosion, or mesh-related infection, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries.

For a free case consultation, contact our team of transvaginal mesh lawyers either by phone at (855) 452-5529 or by e-mail at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us.

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have additional questions about Transvaginal Mesh.


[1] Lin, LL et al. “Dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain after polypropylene mesh augmentation for transvaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse” Int Urogynecol J (2007) 18:675–678

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

In 2009, research was published in The Journal of Urology demonstrating that there is considerable increased risk for infection associated with the use of transvaginal mesh (TVM).  Transvaginal mesh is a synthetic substitute for human tissue, usually made of either polypropylene or silicone that is used in the repair of damaged organ walls as a result of pelvic organ prolapse.

This research was conducted by Caroline Elmer et al., and data for this project was collected by analyzing the number of macrophages found on or near transvaginal mesh.  Macrophages are cells part of the body’s immune system, eating and digesting foreign particles or bacteria to clean the bloodstream.  So, the more macrophages found at a certain cite in the body, the more bacteria that are likely to be present as well.  For more information about macrophages and the immune system, follow the link above.

Studying ten patients who used polypropylene transvaginal mesh and comparing the macrophage count to eight control subjects, Elmer et al. found “a significant postoperative increase in macrophage and mast cell counts,”[1] and concluded that “When used for pelvic reconstructive surgery, macroporous monofilament polypropylene mesh induces a mild but persistent foreign body reaction.”[2]

Due to the small size of this study, more data must be collected on this topic before definite conclusions may be made.  Other studies published about the same time, however, also link use of transvaginal mesh and increased risk of bacterial infection, and it must not be overlooked that the Elmer et al. study illuminates a serious complication of transvaginal mesh use and helps to point future research in a potentially fruitful direction.

As a result of the well-documented high risk for vaginal mesh erosion associated with transvaginal mesh use, and the high number of adverse events reported to the FDA, a number of transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently being filed.

If you or a loved one used transvaginal mesh and experienced transvaginal mesh erosion or mesh-related infection, please do not hesitate to contact our team of transvaginal mesh lawyers for a free case consultation.

By phone, you may reach our offices at (855) 452-5529, and by e-mail, you may reach our offices at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us.  Our firm has the experience, resources, and skills required to win the justice you deserve.  Call today and see how we can help!

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have additional questions about Transvaginal Mesh.


[1] Elmer, C. et al. “Histological Inflammatory Response to Transvaginal Polypropylene Mesh for Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery” The Journal of Urology Vol. 181, Issue 3. Pages 1198-1195, March 2009

[2] Ibid.

A 2009 report published in the International Urogynecology Journal shows clearly that the risk for bacterial infection is dramatically increased with the use of transvaginal mesh, a popular synthetic substitute for human tissue used in surgical repair following pelvic organ prolapse and other ailments.  While transvaginal mesh has previously been found to cause vaginal mesh erosion at a rate of between 10 and 20%, only little research has been conducted on the connection between TVM use and increased risk for infection.

The study team, lead by Astrid Vollebregt, evaluated the amount of bacteria on the transvaginal mesh implants of 64 consequtive women,[1] and “In 56 (83.6%) [transvaginal mesh] implants, a positive culture with vaginal bacteria was found”[2].  Clearly, this rate of complication is exceedingly high.

While this study does not on its own prove that transvaginal mesh use creates an increased risk for bacterial infection, it may be used as a springboard for future research on this topic.  And further, this article may be used in a transvaginal mesh lawsuit to help illustrate the scope of the negative side-effects caused by transvaginal mesh use.

In fact, many transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently being filed due to the fact that several transvaginal mesh manufacturers have failed to adequately warn users about risks well-documented to be associated with TVM, such as vaginal mesh erosion.  If you or a loved one used transvaginal mesh and experienced vaginal mesh erosion or mesh-related infection, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation for your injuries.

For a free case consultation, contact our team of transvaginal mesh lawyers by phone at (855) 452-5529 or by e-mail at justinian@dangerousdrugs.us.

Our Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Information page is a great place to start if you have additional questions about Transvaginal Mesh.  We are here to help!


[1] Vollebregt, A. et al. “Bacterial colonisation of collagen-coated polypropylene vaginal mesh: are additional intraoperative sterility procedures useful?” Int Urogynecol J (2009) 20:1345–1351

[2] Ibid.