Please leave this field empty.

fill out our consultation form
*indicates required field

Vaginal Mesh Erosion Lawyers

The Beasley Firm is currently representing patients who received a surgical mesh implant to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and then either needed corrective surgery or continued to suffer severe symptoms like mesh eroding and stick through the vaginal wall, urinary problems, or infection requiring hospitalization.

Background on the Dangers of Transvaginal Mesh Implants

In July 2011, the FDA reversed position on the use of transvaginal mesh, and altered doctors and hospitals that, “The FDA is issuing this update to inform you that serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare.” The FDA further said:

  • Mesh used in transvaginal POP repair introduces risks not present in traditional non-mesh surgery for POP repair.
  • Mesh placed abdominally for POP repair appears to result in lower rates of mesh complications compared to transvaginal POP surgery with mesh.
  • There is no evidence that transvaginal repair to support the top of the vagina (apical repair) or the back wall of the vagina (posterior repair) with mesh provides any added benefit compared to traditional surgery without mesh.

Mesh erosion through the vagina or vaginal wall is the most common complication from the implanting of surgical mesh following a hysterectomy or surgery for POP or SUI. The mesh products have not been recalled, however, and many are still sold and used in implants.

The Affected Surgical Mesh Implants

Although more than three dozen transvaginal mesh products are implicated by the problem, most of the mesh lawsuits arise from products manufactured by Ethicon / Johnson & Johnson (like Gynecare or Gynemesh), C.R. Bard (like Avaulta), Boston Scientific Products (like Advantage Sling and Pinnacle), and American Medical Systems (like Monarc, Perigee, and Elevate).

What Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits Allege

There are no transvaginal mesh class actions. The cases are filed individually, just like any other personal injury or product liability. In general, the cases allege that the meshes are manufactured out of polypropylene, a synthetic plastic product that is typically knitted or woven into a mesh pattern, and that polypropylene is not biologically inert, like the mesh makers claim, but rather reacts with human tissue.

The problem is that, unlike abdominal wall tissue, vaginal wall tissue is not nearly as strong or as flexible. Thus, after the mesh is implanted, the mesh begins to shrink and — because polyproylene reacts with tissue, and because the vaginal wall is unable to handle much of a stretch — the stretching causes inflammation and the inflammatory process causes the erosion, breakthrough, and symptoms noticed by mesh patients.

The lawsuits allege that the mesh manufacturers negligently failed to adequately consider, test, and warn about these shrinkage and inflammation issues.

Compensation and Settlements for Vaginal Mesh Injuries

For over fifty years, The Beasley Firm has stood up for the rights of injured patients and consumers, and we do the same for our vaginal mesh clients. We know what a toll the mesh symptoms can have on a person’s life, from the embarrassment caused by urinary problems to the emotional injuries caused by pain during sexual intercourse and the damage it causes to our client’s intimate relationships. We work to make sure that our clients will receive fair and adequate compensation for the severity of their injuries, not merely the first offer made by insurance company for the mesh manufacturer.

For a free, confidential consultation with our mesh litigation team, call the number above or use our contact form. You can also read some of our blog posts about transvaginal mesh surgery or our longer analysis of the FDA’s actions on transvaginal mesh erosion.