Call Us: 1.800.873.5297

By

Transvaginal Mesh Device Lawsuit Update: Nearly 23,000 Lawsuits Pending in Federal Court

verdictsThe first federal transvaginal mesh (TVM) trial resumed on July 29, 2013 for the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL ) in the Southern District of West Virginia before The Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. This first bellwether trial involves plaintiff Donna Cisson, who claims that a Bard Avaulta Plus device degraded her body, causing her pain and other physical ailments and requiring her to undergo several revision surgeries. The Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin declared the first federal transvaginal mesh case a mistrial on July 10, 2013, after a gynecology expert witness for plaintiff testified about Bard’s marketing practices in violation of the judge’s previous ruling on the topic.

As of now, over 23,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits are currently pending in the federal courts. Thousands of women have experienced complications from these transvaginal mesh devices, such as device erosion, organ perforation, intense pain, inability to have sexual intercourse and infection. Many of these women have been required to undergo multiple revision surgeries. According to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), there are six multidistrict litigations involving different transvaginal mesh device manufacturers where approximately 23,000 lawsuits are currently pending:

  • MDL 2187 – In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 3,399
  • MDL 2325 – In re: American Medical Systems, Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 7,227
  • MDL 2326 – In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 4,622
  • MDL 2327 – In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 7,117
  • MDL 2387 – In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation: 437
  • MDL 2440 – In re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation: 25

A study conducted by Namma Marcus-Brown and Peter von Theobald and published in the International Urogynecology Journal, has provided statistics on the many possible complications related to the use of transvaginal mesh devices.  The article, entitled “Mesh Removal Following Transvaginal Mesh Placement: A Case Series of 104 Operations,” provides detailed reports on the removal of transvaginal mesh devices and the postoperative treatment required to repair damages caused by such mesh devices in over 100 patients.  In particular, the article provides that “[e]ighty-three patients underwent 104 operations including 61 complete mesh removal, 14 partial excision, 15 section of sub-urethral sling, and five laparoscopies. Main indications were erosion, infection, granuloma, incomplete voiding, and pain. Fifty-eight removals occurred more than 2 years after the primary mesh placement.  Mean operation time was 21 min, and there were two intraoperative and ten minor postoperative complications.  Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) recurred in 38% and cystocele in 19% of patients.” (emphasis added)  This article demonstrates the serious injuries suffered by women as a result of transvaginal mesh devices.

Another study has given cause to further controversy involving the efficacy of transvaginal mesh kits.  This study entitled “Mesh Kits for Anterior Vaginal Prolapse Are Not Cost Effective,” was conducted by Sunshine Murray, et. al. and focused on the observable economic faults of using transvaginal mesh in patients.  The article, published in the International Urogynecology Journal, concluded that “[m]esh kits for AVP(Anterior vaginal prolapse) repair are not cost effective, regardless of the OR (operating room) time saved.” (emphasis added) Overall, this article demonstrates that while other methods for anterior vaginal prolapse have been seen as safe and effective, the cost of using these types of methods involving mesh kits are significantly more expensive for the patient.

If you or a loved one has experienced serious injuries as a result of a transvaginal mesh device, contact the experienced pharmaceutical attorneys at Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, LLP toll-free at 1-800-873-5297. We will confidentially evaluate your case for free and without any obligation.

 

Legal Disclaimer: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550  

Legal Disclaimer & Privacy Policy
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed as legal advice and does not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
This web site is not intended to be advertising, and Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP does not desire to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this web site in a jurisdiction where this web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that jurisdiction. Materials on this web site may only be reproduced in their entirety (without modification) for the individual reader's personal and/or educational use and must include this notice.

We will not disclose, sell, or rent any of your identifiable personal information to any third party, unless approved by you, or required by law.