Preview Newsletter
Ethicon 11/29
-
J&J Unit Didn't Provide Pelvic Mesh Warning, Witness Says
Nov 28, 2017 | Law360
By Bill Wichert
Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon began selling a pelvic mesh product in 2005 without giving doctors a warning related to patient sexual intercourse, according to testimony Tuesday at a New Jersey state court trial over claims the device caused a woman debilitating pain. -
Prolift Transvaginal Mesh – “A Stupid Idea”
Nov 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
The opening day of the Elizabeth Hrymoc v. Ethicon trial put the focus on the Prolift transvaginal mesh. -
Mesh Trials So Far – Tally Plaintiff v. Defendant
Nov 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk (MND) keeps tabs on the pelvic mesh litigation so far. Here are the Transvaginal Mesh Cases as of today: -
What are transvaginal mesh implants? Health watchdog wants NHS to ban 'barbaric' procedure
Nov 28, 2017 | International Business Times
By Lara Rebello
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has called for a ban on transvaginal mesh implants given the damaging side effects they can have. -
Vaginal Mesh Operations Should Be Banned: NICE
Nov 28, 2017 | Tech Times
By Samriddhi Dastidar
The National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence in U.K. is planning to recommend a ban on vaginal mesh operations for treating organ prolapse. -
What 'meshes' have done to women in Wales and why they want them banned
Nov 28, 2017 | Wales Online
By Mark Smith
Mesh implants have caused misery and suffering to thousands of people across the UK.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
-
J&J Unit Didn't Provide Pelvic Mesh Warning, Witness Says
Nov 28, 2017 | Law360
By Bill Wichert
Johnson & Johnson unit Ethicon began selling a pelvic mesh product in 2005 without giving doctors a warning related to patient sexual intercourse, according to testimony Tuesday at a New Jersey state court trial over claims the device caused a woman debilitating pain.
About two months before Prolift hit the market, a doctor working for the company suggested including the warning in the product's “instructions for use,” Ethicon employee Scott Ciarrocca said. But it was not added at that time or to a revised version two years later, Ciarrocca testified at the trial of a lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Hrymoc against the business and related defendants.
That proposed warning, which was included in a Jan. 11, 2005, email forwarded to Ciarrocca, stated:
“WARNING: Early clinical experience has shown that the use of mesh though a vaginal approach can occasionally/uncommonly lead to complications such as vaginal erosion and retraction, which can result in an anatomical distortion of the vaginal cavity that can interfere with sexual intercourse. Clinical data suggest the risk of such a complication is increased in case of associated hysterectomy. This must be taken in consideration when the procedure is planned in a sexually active woman.”
After reading the warning, plaintiffs' attorney Adam Slater asked Ciarrocca in the Hackensack, New Jersey, courtroom, “And are you aware that this is a description pretty much of what happened to Elizabeth Hrymoc?” Ciarrocca said he was not aware.
Ciarrocca, then the research and development project leader for Prolift, said he forwarded the warning to other company officials, one of whom noted in an email that the instructions for use were most likely being printed and that the document should probably be left as is unless the change was absolutely necessary.
Ciarrocca replied in part, “We have already printed launch stock,” and indicated that the warning would be a next revision addition but that the doctor wanted it included as soon as possible. He said the warning was ultimately not included in the 2005 IFU or a 2007 version.
Slater noted that around the time of those emails, a competitor went to market in January 2005 with a similar device, questioning Ciarrocca about his awareness that “time is precious” with doctors adopting such products.
“So you need to get to market quickly, right?” Slater asked him.
Ciarrocca replied, “I think, all things being equal, being first to market is an advantage. I thought we had a much better product.”
Hrymoc, whose husband also is a plaintiff, is among the thousands of women nationwide who have filed suits alleging Ethicon and J&J failed to fully disclose risks associated with its Gynecare Prolift pelvic floor support mesh product, which was on the market from 2005 through 2012.
The Hrymocs’ suit, however, is just the second pelvic mesh suit against Ethicon to go to trial in New Jersey, where the company is headquartered. The trial comes nearly a year after the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to review a jury’s $11.1 million award to the plaintiff in the first pelvic mesh trial.
Hrymoc said she had the Prolift implanted in 2008 to treat a pelvic prolapse, but that it contained a design defect and that the defendants knew it was risky but kept this information from consumers.
Hrymoc, who was 62 when she had the mesh implanted, says she has suffered vaginal pain and pain when having sex since then. Despite multiple operations and procedures, she still suffers from chronic pain, Slater told jurors Monday in his opening statement. Slater said J&J and Ethicon claim to put patient safety first, but willfully ignored signsthat their Prolift mesh product was unsafe.
But defense attorney Judith Wahrenberger told the jury Monday that the evidence shows the implant products were safe and effective, and that Hrymoc had a host of preexisting medical issues, including abdominal pain, pain with sex and urinary complaints, that were now being attributed to the product.
In his cross-examination of Ciarrocca on Tuesday, defense attorney Philip Combs challenged Slater's assertion that Ethicon violated its own rules in bringing Prolift to market. Ciarrocca said that claim is false.
“We did follow the procedures and we met the requirements that were laid out for the product,” Ciarrocca said.
Combs then asked him, “Are you aware of any industry standard that Ethicon violated in the development of this product?”
“No, I'm not,” Ciarrocca replied.
Answering Combs' questions — using an oversized flow chart at one point — Ciarrocca laid out in extensive detail the various steps involved in the development of Prolift, such as the design of the product and the testing on cadavers.
Ciarrocca said Ethicon spent close to five years working on the product. Asked why the process took so long, Ciarrocca said, “We work in … a business with a lot of industry standards about how things have to be done, and we are a pretty deliberate company within that industry.”
But during his redirect examination, Slater again stressed what Ethicon did not do in that development phase: a clinical study of Prolift on live women.
Referring to a binder of documents related to the product development, Slater asked Ciarrocca to show him in “this big book” the clinical studies where the device was tested in human beings. Ciarrocca said no such studies were performed before the product was released on the market.
Slater later pressed Ciarrocca about how Ethicon could have studied the effectiveness of the product and the complications in women over the course of several years before selling the device across the world.
“You could have done that, right?” Slater asked him.
Ciarrocca replied, “Yes, we could have done that.”
The Hrymocs are represented by Adam Slater and David Mazie of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC.
The defendants are represented by Judith Wahrenberger of Ruprecht Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli LLP, Philip Combs of Thomas Combs & Spann PLLC and William Gage of Butler Snow LLP.
The case is Elizabeth Hrymoc et al. v. Ethicon et al., case number L-13696-14, in the Superior Court of the New Jersey, County of Bergen.https://www.law360.com/articles/988799/j-j-unit-didn-t-provide-pelvic-mesh-warning-witness-says
-
Prolift Transvaginal Mesh – “A Stupid Idea”
Nov 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
The opening day of the Elizabeth Hrymoc v. Ethicon trial put the focus on the Prolift transvaginal mesh.
While the defense, Johnson & Johnson, and its Ethicon division, stands by its product, saying it’s helped countless women with prolapse and incontinence, the plaintiffs’ attorney compared its multi-arms to an octopus and called it “a stupid idea.”
The case promises to be similar to the last Ethicon Prolift transvaginal mesh case, heard more than four years ago in New Jersey, the case of South Dakota, nurse Linda Gross.
Hrymoc’s attorney, Adam Slater (Mazie Slater) also represented Gross and will call many of the same experts. During the opening Monday, he held the moving piece of polypropylene, with its six arms flailing around, describing it to the jurors as a “defective design that is unreasonably dangerous.”
The latest transvaginal mesh case is being tried in Hackensack, in Bergen County, moved from the original New Jersey venue, Atlantic City.
Representing Ethicon is Judy Wahrenberger, Ruprecht Hart Weeks and Ricciardulli LLP, Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP and Butler Snow.
Courtroom View Network is covering the proceedings (Subscriber based).
Hrymoc, 71, a research technician from South River in Middlesex County, sat with her husband, Tad, listening to Slater’s opening. They are seeking damages in what NorthJersey.com calls the “largest tort claims litigation in history.”
The website has a video segment of Slater’s opening from Monday, November 27, here.
Hrymoc was 62-years-old when she had the two implants – the TVT-O for incontinence the the Prolift, a larger piece of mesh used to shore up sagging pelvic organs.
Slater told jurors that Prolift was sold beginning in March 2005 and withdrawn from the market by J&J, quietly without an official recall, on August 31, 2012.
Four years later, the FDA would reclassify the Prolift and other larger pelvic organ prolapse (POP) meshes as “High risk” or class III, raising the bar on clearance and requiring clinical trials to assure safety and efficacy.
Manufacturers were given 30 months to prove their POP meshes were safe or phase them off the market.
Hyrmoc claims she suffers from pelvic pain and dyspareunia, painful sex.
Slater told jurors that polypropylene (PP) mesh could potentially injure the body when implanted and Ethicon knew PP, mixing with bodily fluids, could cause the mesh to stiffen and become brittle. Doctors, even experts agree, it’s almost impossible to completely remove.
PP poses more risk in vaginal tissue and Ethicon knew that but withheld the information from doctors and their patients said Slater.
“This is too much mesh and you will see it in document after document, they knew it was too much mesh… they were looking for lighter weight, larger pore. They had to figure out a way to solve this.”
Defense will say that polypropylene mesh was used safely for 60 years but consider the fact that historically that mesh was made into a suture. Transvaginal mesh implants involve a larger quantity of mesh. “The risk/benefit ratio is completely different for a suture than for mesh,” he said.
Jurors must decide based on “the preponderance of evidence.”
Evidence for the plaintiff will show an Ethicon power point plan to bring doctors in and teach them how to use Prolift. Sales reps were told to bring in doctors for training who can do a lot of surgery and influence other doctors, “because this is about money,” he said.
Explaining that some women experience a foreign body reaction to the PP mesh implant, he added that too much material creates a foreign body reaction and “the body rejects the invader.”
“They knew it was too much mesh.”
J&J is a company worth $70 billion and it should pay for its mistakes. “We know the only language they speak is money….. the only way to deter them and to punish them is to make them pay.”
Attorney for Ethicon, Judy Wahrenberger, said Hrymock had a long history of pelvic problems and that all surgeries carry risks. She claimed that Hrymoc’s complications resulted from surgery, not the meshes.
Scott Ciarrocca was called as the first witness. He was an Ethicon engineer who helped bring Prolift to market. Ciarrocca has a background in electrical engineering and still works for Ethicon.
During testimony in the Hammons trial (here), Ciarrocca told jurors that safety concerns over Prolift had been answered and the conclusion was it was safe and effective, despite the 20.1 % failure rate.
Slater told jurors “The defective design is unreasonably dangerous, It’s a stupid idea.”
Prolift has been found defectively designed in two cases heard in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas – Hammons ($12.5 million) and Beltz ($2.16 million).
TVT-O was found defectively designed in the September 2014 case of Jo Huskey ($3.27 million). TVT-O (obturator) remains on the market.
J&J is facing more than 55,000 similar cases worldwide including a class action case of 700 women currently underway in Sydney Australia.
Expect the Hrymock trial to last at least four weeks before New Jersey Superior Court Judge Rachelle Harz.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/prolift-transvaginal-mesh-stupid-idea/
-
Mesh Trials So Far – Tally Plaintiff v. Defendant
Nov 28, 2017 | Mesh Medical Device News Desk
Mesh Medical Device News Desk (MND) keeps tabs on the pelvic mesh litigation so far. Here are the Transvaginal Mesh Cases as of today:1. 7/12: $5.5 million – Christine Scott – C.R. Bard Avaulta Plus – Bakersfield, CA
2. 2/13: $11.11 million – Linda Gross – Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – Atlantic City, NJ
3. 8/13: $2 million – Donna Cisson – C.R. Bard (Avaulta) – MDL WV
4. 8/13: Settled – Queen v. C.R. Bard – (Avaulta Solo) – MDL, WV
5. 2/14: $0 – Carolyn Lewis – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O) – MDL WV
6. 4/14: $1.2 million – Linda Batiste – Ethicon/JJ (TVT-O), overturned on appeal – Dallas, TX
7. 5/14: Settled C. Schubert v Ethicon, (Prolift) – MO
8. 5/14: Settled – S Wilkins Gynecare (TVT Secur) – MO.
9. 7/14: $0 – Diane Albright – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle )– Middlesex Co. MA, will win new trial
10. 8/14: $0 – Maria Cardenas – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – Middlesex Co., MA
11. 9/14: $3.27 million – Jo Huskey – Ethicon/JJ TVT-O, survived appeal by Ethicon – MDL WV
12. 9/14: $73.465 million – Martha Salazar – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – Dallas, TX
13. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Amal Eghnayem – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL, Miami FL
14. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Margarita Dotres – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL, Miami FL
15. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Mania Nunez – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle)– MDL , Miami FL
16. 11/14: $6.5+ million – Juana Betancourt – Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – MDL Miami FL
17. 11/14: $5.25 million – Jeanie Blankenship – Boston Scientific(Obtryx) – MDL WV
18. 11/14: $4.75 million – Chris Wilson – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL WV
19. 11/14: $4.25 million – Carol Campbell – Boston Scientific (Obtryx)– MDL WV
20. 11/14: $4.25 million – Jacquelyn Tyree – Boston Scientific (Obtryx) – MDL WV
21. 1/15: Settled – Joan Budke, Ethicon (Prolift) wrongful death – Lake of the Ozarks, MO
22. 2/15: Settled – Wise v. Bard in the MDL
23. 3/15: Settled – Bellew v. Ethicon (Prolift) – MDL
24. 5/15: Settled – Sanchez v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – CA
25. 3/15: $5.7 million – Coleen Perry – Ethicon/JJ (Abbrevo sling) – Bakersfield, CA
26. 5/15: $100 million – Deborah Barba v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair & Advantage Fit) – Delaware
27. 9/15: Settled, Wicker v. Ethicon, (Prolift Anterior) – MDL New Jersey
28. 10/15: $0 – Carol Cavness v. Ethicon/JJ (Prosima) – Dallas, TX
29. 10/15: $0 – Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific (Uphold) – Statesville, NC
30. 12/15: $12.5 million – Hammons v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) – Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
31. 2/16: $0 – Sherrer v. Boston Scientific (Solyx) and C.R.Bard (Align) – Kansas City, MO
32. 2/16: $13.5 – Carlino v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT) – Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
33. 2/16: $4.4 million – Taylor V Mentor OB Tape (TVT-O ) – GA
34. 9/16: Settled – Figueroa v Boston Scientific (Solyx SIS System) – Dallas
35. 4/17: $20 million- Engleman v Gynecare, (TVT-S) – Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
36. 5/17: $2.16 million – Beltz v. Ethicon, (Prolift) – Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
37. 6/17: $0 – Atkins v. Ethicon, (TVT-Secur) – Philadelphia court of Common Pleas, August a new hearing on damages was ordered by the judge.
38. 9/17: $57 million – Ebaugh v. Ethicon, (TVT, TVT-Secur) – Philadelphia Court of Common PleasTALLY:
Defense Wins: 7 (2 are getting another hearing)
Plaintiff Wins: 22
Settled: 9
These are only the cases the your editor is aware of. While we follow the trials in the U.S. closely, it is impossible to know how many cases have quietly settled or were never set for trial and are being settled en masse.
https://www.meshmedicaldevicenewsdesk.com/mesh-trials-far-tally-plaintiff-v-defendant/
-
What are transvaginal mesh implants? Health watchdog wants NHS to ban 'barbaric' procedure
Nov 28, 2017 | International Business Times
By Lara Rebello
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has called for a ban on transvaginal mesh implants given the damaging side effects they can have. According to the draft guidelines issued by the health watchdog, the implants should be banned from use in routine operations and only utilised for research purposes.
According to the document, which is expected to be released in December, the procedure when used to treat pelvic organ prolapse raises "serious but well-recognised safety concerns". It stated that "evidence of long-term efficacy is inadequate in quality and quantity".
"When complications occur, these can be serious and have life-changing consequences", it continued.
One of the major complications arises when the implants cut into the vagina, causing chronic pain, and difficulty while having sex, and in some cases even walking and doing every-day chores.
While Nice has recommended restriction of use for prolapse patients, it does not relate to mesh implants for incontinence.
Campaigners against the use of vaginal mesh welcomed the institute's draft guidance and expressed hope that it would push the National Health Service (NHS) to take implement a ban on its use across the UK.
"This is essentially a ban on the use of mesh to treat prolapse, as there is no research context in which it's likely to be used," Owen Smith, the Labour MP for Pontypridd told The Guardian. "It's also another move towards clinicians recognising the scale of the risk associated with mesh and an acknowledgement that mesh has been too widely seen as a quick fix for patients."
"The reports that mesh will be banned for treating organ prolapse in England are a step in the right direction but the government have to be clear about their position on this," shadow minister for public health and MP Sharon Hodgson opined.
"Ministers should take a lead and step in to take these products off the market while the guidance is being prepared. Labour is calling for a pause whilst a full inquiry uncovers the extent of the harm done by mesh implants so we can be sure that this never happens again," she added.
In April, IBTimes UK reported that more than 800 women in the UK, who have undergone transvaginal mesh implants, were suing the NHS and the manufacturers.What are transvaginal mesh implants?
Surgical mesh is a medical device that is used to provide extra support when repairing damaged tissue. Most surgical mesh devices are made from synthetic materials or animal tissue.
Transvaginal meshes or urogynaecological meshes are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse which occurs when a pelvic organ-such as your bladder rectum or uterus drops (prolapses) from its normal place in your lower belly and pushes against the walls of your vagina. This can happen when the muscles that hold your pelvic organs in place get weak or stretched from childbirth or surgery.
It is also used in cases of stress incontinence, a condition in which physical movement or activity — such as coughing, sneezing, running or heavy lifting — puts pressure (stress) on your bladder. This can lead to unintentional loss of urine. It is common among women after childbirth and at the menopause.
How do they work?
Usually made from synthetic polypropylene, transvaginal mesh implants are available in "sling", "tape", "ribbon", "mesh" and "hammock" form, based on the manufacturer's specifications. The mesh attempts to repair damaged or weakened tissue by providing a permanent support for the organ and prevent it from sagging.
Complications from transvaginal mesh implants
While results for use on incontinence patients proved more successful, women suffering from prolapse proved to suffer more complications. One of the most common serious issues rises when the mesh cuts through the vaginal wall.
Kate Langley, one of the patients who received an implant described the implants as "barbaric" and recalled making over 53 visits to the hospital to deal with the severe pain and nerve damage from the procedure. A doctor said the implant had cut through her vaginal wall "like a cheese-wire".
In many cases women were forced to quit their jobs and get additional care to manage living with the pain.
"I have chronic pelvic pain on a daily basis and I'm on 9 different medications when I have a pain attack," Margie Maguire, 41, told the Victoria Derbyshire programme. "These can last from 2 to 6 hours at a time and is like having a heart attack."
-
Vaginal Mesh Operations Should Be Banned: NICE
Nov 28, 2017 | Tech Times
By Samriddhi Dastidar
The National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence in U.K. is planning to recommend a ban on vaginal mesh operations for treating organ prolapse.
NICE’s draft guidelines suggest that vaginal mesh should only be used for research and not for regular operations. The suggestion for banning the implant comes after it has been noticed that the mesh cut into the vagina of an operated woman, leaving them in permanent pain and unable to have sex, work, or even walk.Transvaginal Mesh Implant
Transvaginal meshes are urogynaecological meshes that are used for treating stress incontinence. The condition makes women leak from their bladder while doing impact activities like coughing, sneezing, jumping, and running. It is more common in women who have given birth or at menopause.
Around 20 percent women are impacted sufficiently by stress continence for it to become a daily problem, according to a report. Mesh surgery has a low complication rate for treating incontinence.
The problem arises when meshes are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse in women. It is a condition where a pelvic organ, like the uterus, rectum, or bladder sags and moves out of place in a woman after childbirth due to damaged or weak pelvic floor tissue, ligaments, or muscles.Problems Related To Vaginal Mesh Operations
“The mesh implant is intended to be permanent but, if removal is needed because of complications, the anchoring system can make the device very difficult or impossible to remove,” NICE has stated. “The evidence on efficacy in the long term is inadequate in quality and quantity. Therefore, this procedure should not be used unless there are special arrangements in place for clinical governance, consent, and audit or research.”
A patient who went through the treatment, Margie Maguire, 41, said that she cannot walk unaided or have more children because of the damage caused by the mesh. She suffers from a chronic pelvic pain daily and needs nine different medications during a pain attack that can last anywhere from two to six hours.
Another patient, Kate Langley, said that she has been admitted to the hospital 53 times to end the pain but the mesh could not be fully removed as it was so near the nerve. The implants have left Langley with nerve damage and permanent pain.
In April, more than 800 women in U.K. took legal action against the NHS and the makers of vaginal mesh implants.
Experts have reportedly said that there are high chances that the National Health Service will act on the recommendation, though there is no compulsion for NHS to act on the findings it gets from NICE. Presently, both NHS and NICE have declined to comment on the developments.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/216310/20171128/vaginal-mesh-operations-banned-nice.htm
-
What 'meshes' have done to women in Wales and why they want them banned
Nov 28, 2017 | Wales Online
By Mark Smith
Mesh implants have caused misery and suffering to thousands of people across the UK.
They have left them in permanent pain, unable to walk, work or make love to their partners.
But despite frequent complications, the operations are continuing to be carried out on the NHS and privately.What are these implants meant to do?
The plastic meshes support organs such as the vagina, uterus, bowel, bladder or urethra.
They are most commonly used by surgeons to treat pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in women, conditions that can commonly occur after childbirth.
They are made of polypropylene – the same material used to make certain drinks bottles – and manufactured by many different companies.
Surgeons say the procedure is a simple, less invasive alternative to traditional surgical approaches.
What are the possible complications?
While many people have been successfully treated with the mesh implants, others have not been so lucky.
Some women have reported severe and constant abdominal and vaginal pain following the surgery, while others have experienced incontinence, infections and bleeding.
The complications range from the mild to the severe, with some people unable to walk properly or lead a normal life.
In several cases the mesh has led to perforated organs, which makes it very difficult for surgeons to remove the implant safely.
The suffering of women in Wales
Sadly, many cases have been reported in recent months.
Pauline Inch, from Barry, has a mesh implanted to support her stomach muscles.
But she claims it is “slowly killing” her and has left her in constant, crippling pain.
The 60-year-old said it is now “embedded” in her bowel, abdomen and surrounding organs – but she says no surgeon will attempt to remove it.
“I don’t feel like I’m a human being anymore,” she said.
“I can’t even look after myself because of what this mesh has done to me.
“It has robbed me of my life and my marriage.”
Carolyn Churchill, from Nantgarw, was an active woman who worked as a chef and spent hours each week walking her dogs.
But that all changed when a plastic mesh was implanted into her in a bid to combat her stress incontinence.
The 57-year-old said the implant left her in agonising pain, stopped her walking properly and ruined a 14-year relationship with her partner.
“I feel absolutely traumatised by it all,” she said.
“I was left in horrendous pain. I was unable to walk properly, I couldn’t lie on my side for five years and I couldn’t bend as all the movement from my waist down was restricted.
“I’ve given birth to three children naturally and I would rather go through that 10 times over than go through the pain of the mesh again.”
Catherine Haley, 55, was given the pelvic implant during an operation to remove her womb and fix a prolapsed bowel in 2004.
But she claims she started suffering complications soon afterwards including daily bleeding.
The mum-of-five said: “My youngest started school two months before I prolapsed and from then on it has just been awful.
“It affects your whole life in a way you don’t understand at the time.
“I was scared to go out because I became incontinent.
“I struggle to do anything.”
So why are these mesh implants still being used?
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is due to issue new guidance on the devices treating organ prolapse next month.
The watchdog could either say that the devices are either:no longer recommended for use;that they should only be used for research purposes;or that they should only take place when clinicians have had certain conversations with prospective patients about possible side effects or complications.
BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show has reported that NICE will recommend that the devices should no longer be used. However, NICE’s recommendations are not mandatory.
At present, the regulator has different pieces of draft guidance for varying uses of the devices – such as prolapse or urinary incontinence.
It currently states that the procedure “should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research”.
And that clinicians wishing to undertake this surgical repair should “ensure that patients understand that there is uncertainty about the long-term results and there is a risk of complications, including sexual dysfunction and erosion into the vagina, which would require additional procedures”.
Has there been any campaign to ban them?
The issue has gained a lot of political attention in recent months and a debate on their use was held in Parliament on October 18.
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Surgical Mesh Implants, chaired by Owen Smith MP, has been calling for better support for mesh-injured women, together with the campaign group Sling the Mesh.
It is calling for the suspension of mesh and a full investigation in the use of mesh.
Pontypridd MP Owen Smith said he welcomed NICE's decision to move forward new guidance on the devices treating pelvic organ prolapse - but said more needs to be done.
He said: “It’s another move towards clinicians recognising the scale of the risk associated with mesh and an acknowledgement that mesh has been too widely seen as a quick fix for patients.
“NICE now needs to bring forward new guidelines into the other procedures where mesh is being used, for stress related incontinence and hernias, because there are similar and growing concerns there too about the safety of this treatment.”
Kath Sansom, of campaign group Sling The Mesh, said: “We are delighted that it is the first mesh to effectively get a back door ban but much more now needs to happen.
“The full guidelines for all prolapse mesh and incontinence mesh are due out 2019 but that is way too long to wait.
“NICE must bring those guidelines forward to 2018. It is unacceptable, knowing the pressure being put on by patient safety campaign groups, to hold off until 2019.
“Sling the Mesh now has more than 4,400 members. All saying the same thing – they were assured they were the only ones suffering.
“It is essential to get the full NICE guidelines out much earlier than 2019 to prevent more women being harmed by a mesh device that is not fit-for-purpose.”Will we ban them in Wales?
A Welsh Government spokesperson said: “We are currently reviewing the use of vaginal mesh and tape and will await the NICE recommendations.”
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/what-meshes-done-women-wales-13961977
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
Online Sources
Add recipients
Suggested