If you have had pelvic or vaginal mesh implanted for conditions such as vaginal or pelvic organ prolapse, and are experiencing serious complications such as mesh erosion, you are not alone. Hundreds of women across the United States have been harmed by these products. Jim Avery is representing several women who have experienced serious complications from vaginal mesh implants.
FDA Issues a Warning Concerning Transvaginal Mesh Products.
For many women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse (POP), a condition in which the bladder, uterus, rectum or vagina slip out of place, or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the implantation of a transvaginal mesh device was assumed to be a welcome relief to treat their condition. Instead, the implantation of the faulty devices left many women experiencing life-altering side effects and devastating complications.
In October of 2008, the FDA released a warning discussing the potential complications that can arise from the use of mesh repair products used to treat POP and SUI. Today, the use of these transvaginal mesh products to repair POP or to treat SUI is controversial, as other safer, more effective surgical methods are available.
Complications associated with the use of transvaginal mesh products are well documented and include:
- erosion through the vaginal epithelium
- permanent nerve damage
- scarring of vaginal tissue
- pelvic pain and discomfort
- urinary problems
- pain during sex
- recurrence of the prolapse and/or incontinence
- bowel, bladder, and blood vessel perforation during the surgical procedure
Women who are affected by these side effects may need additional surgery to remove the vaginal mesh product, and as a result of such complications, many women report chronic discomfort and a reduced quality of life.
VAGINAL MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL)
The hundreds of lawsuits that have resulted from vaginal mesh failures has prompted the formation of a federal multi-district litigation to coordinate the lawsuits. Similar to a class action, the parties’ claims against the various manufacturers are being handled by committee and ‘mass’ fashion. Avery Law Firm has limited its client acceptance to only the most serious of cases that merit individual attention and are generally not amenable to settlement according to the formulas adapted by the committee approach to solve hundreds of cases en mass. Cases accepted by our firm generally involve six figures in medical expenses incurred from complications caused by the mesh implant, and frequently that means multiple surgeries and disability associated with the injury.