FDA Warns Of Risk Of Complications From Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh

If you or a loved one was treated for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse with surgery that involved the transvaginal placement of surgical mesh, you may be at risk of developing serious medical complications. An estimated 1,000 women in the United States have suffered serious injuries and complications following the surgical procedures in recent years, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a public advisory about nine brands of surgical mesh.

Women who were injured by the use of transvaginal placement surgical mesh in surgeries to repair damage done by stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse may have rights to financial compensation. Complications commonly associated with this type of surgical product include infection, pain, and perforation of the bowel, bladder, and blood vessels. The experienced attorneys at Andrus Anderson LLP are dedicated to fighting for victims of surgical mesh to receive the financial compensation to which they are entitled.

FDA Warning

In October 2008, the FDA issued a public health warning to warn consumers about the risks of complication from the transvaginal placement of surgical mesh. Although rare, the complications pose serious health risks to women. The FDA recommended that physicians receive additional training in the use of the products and give more information to patients about the mesh in an effort to reduce injuries and complications.

When is the Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh Used?

The transvaginal placement of surgical mesh is most commonly used in surgical mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. The mesh is placed along the vaginal wall to protect the area and is designed to be left permanently inside the body.

Vaginal Mesh Injuries

Women injured by the transvaginal placement of surgical mesh may suffer a wide range of injuries, including infection, bladder pain, urinary problems, and a recurrence of the condition for which the surgery was done. There have also been reports of bowel, bladder, and blood vessel perforation during insertion of the mesh and of vaginal scarring and mesh erosion.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Consumers’ Rights In State Courts

Andrus Anderson LLP lauds a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Altria v. Good to deny immunity for cigarette manufacturers who violate state consumer protection laws with false claims of lowered tar and nicotine.

Partner Lori Andrus agrees with the statement issued by the America Association for Justice (www.justice.org): “Today’s decision is a victory for consumers and affirms that cigarette manufacturers cannot claim immunity from consumer fraud when they claim their products have lowered tar and nicotine levels, even though they do not. State laws have an important role to play in helping the federal government police false claims, and today’s decision supports that role.”

“We hope that the court continues to look at claims of corporate immunity from the perspective of consumer health and safety and continues to support the rights of consumers to get justice through the courts.”

To view the full Supreme Court opinion, click here.