Surgical Mesh: Harm-for-Profit Crimes Against Women

Mesh Lawsuits

$57.1 Million Verdict Against Johnson and Johnson

$57.1 million was awarded against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon to Ella Ebaugh, who was implanted with TVT-Secur transvaginal mesh that eroded through her urethra, caused her internal injuries and permanently damaged her urinary system leaving her incontinent. The jury verdict included $7.1 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas verdict was delivered September 7, 2017, marking the fifth TVM verdict against the mesh manufacturers.

$20 million was awarded to a woman who suffered after multiple surgeries to remove a TVT-Secur mesh implant. On April 28, 2017, the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court jury awarded  $2.5 in compensatory damages and $17.5 million in punitive damages. Plaintiff, Peggy Engleman’s mesh failed within a month of implantation causing pain as the mesh eroded into her tissues leaving shreds of mesh in her body. On May 26, 2017, Sharon Beltz was awarded $2.16 million for injuries caused by Ethicon’s Prolift implanted in 2006. Johnson and Johnson vows to appeal both cases to a higher court.

Transvaginal mesh bellwether trials and settlements are updated as follows:

MDL No. 2327 | In Re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation – Cases are being prepared for trials, dismissals or remands. Total Cases: 38,956 Total Closed: 7718  Past verdicts and settlements include:

• Mullins, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-02952 (37 TVTs) trial continued
• Edwards v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., 2:12-cv-09972-  Dismissed
• Dianne Bellew v. Ethicon, Inc. (Prolift) settled March 6, 2015
• Carolyn Lewis v. Ethicon, et al. Defense Judgment
• Huskey v. Ethicon, et al. $3.27 Million Verdict for Plaintiffs
• Brenda Lehrer v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. (Prolift) Dismissed

MDL No. 2325 | In Re American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation – Settlement announced for all remaining mesh lawsuits in the MDL. Total Cases: 21,127  Total Closed: 17,248

MDL No. 2187 | In Re C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation–  Cases are being prepared for trials, dismissals or remands. The court ordered Mandatory Settlement Conferences for unsettled Covidien LP, Sofradim and TSL plaintiffs.  Total Cases: 15,491  Total Closed: 10,452  Past verdicts and settlements include:

• Wise, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. – Settled
• Donna Cisson v. Bard, Inc.  – $2 Million Verdict
• Wanda Queen v. Bard, Inc. 2:11-cv-00012  – Settled
• Carolyn Jones v. Bard, Inc. 2:11-cv-00114 – Settled

MDL No. 2326 | In Re Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation – Settlements in process with no trials scheduled. Total Cases: 25,029   Total Closed: 15,101   Past verdicts include:

• Jeanie Blankenship – $4.25 million +  $1 million punitive damages
• Chris Wilson – $3.75 million +  $1 million punitive damages
• Carol Campbell – $3.25 million + $1 million  punitive damages
• Jacquelyn Tyree  – $3.25 million + $1 million punitive damages
• Juana Betancourt – $6.5 + million
• Mania Nunez – $6.7 + million; and
• Margarita Dotres – $6.7 + million;
• Amal Eghnayem – $6.7 + million

MDL No. 2440 | In Re Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation – No trials have been scheduled. The following cases were dismissed: Ailey v. Cook Inc., Watkins v. Cook Inc., et al. Hovey v. Cook Inc., et al.  Total Cases: 629 Total Closed: 123

MDL No. 2387 | In Re Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation – . There are no bellwether trials scheduled and the judge is conducting settlement conferences. Total Cases: 2610 Total Closed: 2397

MDL No. 2511 | In Re Neomedic Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation – There are no bellwether trials scheduled. Settlement Program entered 11/2015. Total Cases: 137 Total Closed: 125

Transvaginal Mesh Verdicts 

A chronology of the verdicts, settlements, manufacturers, products, and jurisdictions follows:

1. 7/12: $5.5 million – Christine Scott – C.R. Bard Avaulta Plus –  CA
2. 2/13: $11.11 million – Linda Gross – Ethicon/JJ Prolift – NJ
3. 8/13: $2 million – Donna Cisson – C.R. Bard Avaulta – MDL WV
4. 2/14: $0 – Carolyn Lewis – Ethicon/JJ TVT-O – MDL WV
5. 4/14: $1.2 million – Linda Batiste – Ethicon/JJ TVT-O  – TX
6. 7/14: $0 – Diane Albright – Boston Scientific Pinnacle – MA
7. 8/14: $0 – Maria Cardenas – Boston Scientific Obtryx – MA
8. 9/14: $3.27 million – Jo Huskey – Ethicon/JJ TVT-O – MDL WV
9. 9/14: $73.465 million – Martha Salazar – Boston Scientific Obtryx – TX
10. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Amal Eghnayem – Boston Scientific Pinnacle – MDL FL
11. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Margarita Dotres – Boston Scientific Pinnacle – MDL FL
12. 11/14: $6.7+ million – Mania Nunez – Boston Scientific Pinnacle – MDL FL
13. 11/14: $6.5+ million – Juana Betancourt – Boston Scientific Pinnacle – MDL FL
14. 11/14: $5.25 million – Jeanie Blankenship – Boston Scientific Obtryx –  MDL WV
15. 11/14: $4.75 million – Chris Wilson – Boston Scientific Obtryx – MDL
16. 11/14: $4.25 million – Carol Campbell – Boston Scientific Obtryx – MDL
17. 11/14: $4.25 million – Jacquelyn Tyree – Boston Scientific Obtryx – MDL
18. 2/15: Settled – Wise v. Bard in the MDL
19. 3/15: Settled  – Bellew v. Ethicon (Prolift) in the MDL;
20. 5/15: Settled – Sanchez v. Boston Scientific (Pinnacle) – CA
21. 3/15: $5.7 million – Coleen Perry – Ethicon/JJ Abbrevo sling – CA
22. 5/15: $100 million – Deborah Barda v. Boston Scientific Pinnacle and Advantage Fit – DL
23. 10/15: $0 – Carol Cavness v. Ethicon/JJ Prosima –  TX
24. 10/15: $0 – Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific Uphold – NC
25. 12/15: $12.5 million – Hammons v. Ethicon/JJ (Prolift) –  PA
26. 2/16: $0 – Sherrer v. Boston Scientific Solyx and Bard Align – MO
27. 2/16: $13.5 – Carlino v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT)  – PA
28. 4/17:  $20.0 million – Engleman v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT Secur) – PA
29. 5/17: $2.16 million – Betz v. Ethicon/Prolift – PA
30. 9/17: $57.1 million – Ebaugh v. Ethicon/JJ (TVT-Secur) – PA

TVM Verdicts and Trials

On February 10, 2016, $13.5 million was awarded by a Philadelphia jury in Carlino v. Ethicon. $10 million of that award was for punitive damages. The plaintiff suffered through three TVT sling revision and removal mesh surgeries following her Ethicon/Johnson and Johnson implant. 

This follows a $12.5 million jury verdict in a transvaginal mesh lawsuit against Johnson and Johnson’s Ethicon division on December 22, 2015. A Philadephia jury found that Patricia Hammons suffered injuries from a Prolift pelvic mesh implant, which was removed from the medical device market in 2012. The $12.5 million award included $7 million in punitive damages as the jury heard evidence of Ethicon’s document destruction. 

On February 2, 2016, a Kansas City, Missouri jury awarded nothing to the plaintiff in a Boston Scientific Solyx and C.R. Bard Align case. On October 16th,  2015, the jury awarded nothing to the plaintiff in Martha Carlson v. Boston Scientific in Statesville, North Carolina. On October 5th, 2015, the jury awarded nothing for the plaintiff in Carol Cavness v. Ethicon/ Johnson and Johnson in Dallas, Texas.  

As of August 3rd, 2016, eighteen (18) transvaginal mesh plaintiffs have won trials and the defendants have won six (6). Following the failed status conferences, TVM trials moved forward, resulting in two plaintiffs’ verdicts ranging from $100 Million to $5.7 Million and numerous confidential settlements.  Boston Scientific, Coloplast, AMS and Bard have begun offering settlements. 

A  California jury awarded $5.7 million to Coleen Perry, who was implanted with an Abbrevo sling device. Ms. Perry experienced pain after surgery, but the sling could only be partially surgically removed  because the mesh had grown into the tissues. The jury unanimously awarded $5 million in punitive damages finding Ethicon acted with malice.

Trial began March 2, 2015 in Bellew v. Ethicon in the MDL and settled March 6, 2015 for an undisclosed amount. This case involved removal of a Prolift mesh, a product which had been taken off the medical device market. 

Bard Bellwether Case Settles Before Trial

Wise v. Bard, the bellwether case set for trial February 18, 2015, was settled right before trial for a confidential amount.  On February 12, 2015,  Judge Goodwin appointed Ellen Reisman as Special Master to facilitate settlement negotiations in the Bard MDL. Christine Scott, the first Bard Avaulta Plus plaintiff who endured nine mesh revision surgeries stated, “Thank God, we can finally get the word out to women.”

$26.7 Million and $18.5 Million Verdicts Against Boston Scientific 

$26.7 million and $18.5 million verdicts against Boston Scientific were awarded in two transvaginal mesh MDL trials. On November 13, 2014, a Miami, Florida jury awarded $26.7 million to four women implanted with Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle mesh devices. On November 20, 2014,  a Charleston, West Virginia jury awarded  $18.5 million to four women implanted with Boston Scientific’s Obtryx mid-urethral slings. The Obtryx verdict included $4 million in punitive damages, with $1 million awarded to each plaintiff.

The women in the Florida Pinnacle trial were each awarded between $6.5 million and $6.7 million. Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle mesh devices were implanted during pelvic organ prolapse surgeries and are no longer on the market. The individual awards for the women in the Pinnacle mesh trial include: 

1. Amal Eghnayem – $6.7 + million;
2. Margarita Dotres – $6.7 + million;
3. Mania Nunez – $6.7 + million; and
4. Juana Betancourt – $6.5 + million

The women in the West Virginia Obtryx sling trial were each awarded between $3.25 million to $4.25 million, plus an additional $1 million each for punitive damages. The Obtryx sling devices are implanted during stress urinary incontinence surgeries and are still on the market. The individual awards for the women in the Obtryx sling trial include: 

1. Jeanie Blankenship – $4.25 million +  $1 million punitive damages;
2. Chris Wilson – $3.75 million +  $1 million punitive damages;
3. Carol Campbell – $3.25 million + $1 million  punitive damages;
4. Jacquelyn Tyree  – $3.25 million + $1 million punitive damages

Transvaginal Mesh Adverse Events

Click the TVM video link which contains medical legal animation, diagrams and warnings about TVM implants and the transvaginal mesh litigation. Failed Transvaginal Mesh Injury Lawsuit Podcast with Howard L. Nations

Transvaginal mesh and vaginal sling products have been linked to thousands of reported serious, life-threatening side effects or adverse events from seven surgical mesh manufacturers. The complications are associated with surgical mesh devices used to repair Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI). The mesh devices are typically placed transvaginally for minimally invasive placement. Complications include:

• erosion through the vaginal tissue
• mesh contraction
• mesh extrusion
• inflammation
• fistula
• infection and abscess
• pain
• blood loss
• chronic and acute nerve damage
• pudendal nerve damage
• pelvic floor damage
• scar tissue
• chronic pelvic pain
• urinary problems and/or incontinence
• recurrence of prolapse
• bowel, bladder, and blood vessel perforation
• dyspareunia or pain during sexual intercourse

Treatment of the complications includes additional surgical procedures to revise or remove the mesh, blood transfusions, drainage of hematomas, drainage of abscesses from infection, IV medication, pain injections, botox injections, physical therapy, among other treatments to alleviate the complications. 

In July 1, 2012, Bard stopped selling the Avaulta Mesh in the United States because the FDA required additional clinical trials and testing.

On June 4, 2012: Johnson and Johnson/Ethicon withdrew four mesh products from the US Market, including its controversial Gynecare Prolift, Prolift+ M, TVT Secur and Prosima systems.

History of Warnings

Surgical mesh is a metallic or polymeric screen surgically implanted to reinforce and support weakened soft tissue or bone. On the market since the 1950s for use in abdominal hernias, gynecologists in the 1970s began using surgical mesh to reinforce vaginal tissue to treat pelvic organ prolapse. In the 1990s, surgeons began using surgical mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence in women.

Transvaginal mesh was approved for sale through the 510(k) process simply by comparing it to the kind of mesh used to treat abdominal hernias. Most transvaginal mesh products on the market today are based on Boston Scientific Corp.’s ProteGen mesh, which the FDA approved in 1996 as the first surgical mesh to treat stress urinary incontinence. Two years later, the FDA approved Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare TVT mesh through the 510(k) process after the company claimed the mesh was substantially equivalent to ProteGen.

However, in October, 1999, the FDA recalled Boston Scientific’s ProteGen sling due to the large number of complications experienced by women, including erosion of the vaginal tissues. The complete irony is that a majority of the transvaginal mesh are based upon this recalled defective device.

On October 20, 2008, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued an urgent public health notification to physicians and patients regarding serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI).

On May 16, 2011, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Study on Transvaginal Mesh Complications confirmed that the use of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse carries the risk of serious side effects including bladder perforation and pelvic hemorrhaging.

On July 13, 2011, FDA issued an updated safety communication warning that surgical placement of transvaginal mesh to repair POP may expose patients to a greater risk of side effects than other treatment options. In addition to the increased risk of side effects, the FDA stated that vaginal mesh offers no greater clinical value or improved quality of life over other surgical methods.

On August 25, 2011, Public Citizen called on FDA to recall the vaginal mesh in response to a high number of reports linking vaginal mesh products to erosion, pain, bleeding and urinary incontinence.

Transvaginal Mesh Products & Manufacturers 

Ethicon

• Secure
• Prolift
• Prolift +M
• Gynemesh/Gynemesh PS
• Prosima
• TVT
• TVT-Obturator (TVT-O)
• TVT-SECUR (TVT-S)
• TVT-Exact
• TVT-Abbrevo

C. R. Bard

• Align
• Avaulta Plus™ BioSynthetic Support System
• Avaulta Solo™ Synthetic Support System
• Faslata® Allograft
• Pelvicol® Tissue
• PelviSoft® Biomesh
• Pelvitex™ Polypropylene Mesh
• PelviLace
• InnerLace
• Uretex

American Medical Systems 

• SPARC®
• Mini-Arc
• Apogee
• Elevate
• Monarc
• In-Fast
• BioArc

Boston Scientific

• Obtryx® Curved Single
• Obtryx® Mesh Sling
• Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System
• Prefyx Mid U™ Mesh Sling System
• Prefyx PPS™ System
• Uphold Vaginal Support System
• Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit
• Advantage Transvaginal Mid-Urethral Sling System
• Advantage Fit System
• Solyx SIS System

Coloplast

• T-Sling-Universal Polypropylene Sling
• Aris-Transobturator Sling System
• Supris-Suprapubic Sling System
• Novasilk-Synthetic Flat Mesh
• Suspend-Tutoplast Processed Fascia Lata
• Exair-Prolapse Repair System
• Axis-Tutoplast Processed Dermis
• Restorelle
• Smartmesh
• Omnisure
• Minitape

Cook 

• Surgisis

http://www.carolynstclair.com/trucking-accidents/practice-areas/transvaginal-mesh/

Australian Inquiry: Pelvic Mesh Causes Catastrophic Harm

A Melbourne Senate inquiry hearing was told up to 3000 women left with serious mesh injuries

Joanne McCarthy

4 Aug 2017, 5:30 a.m.

Determined: Women pelvic mesh victims leave the Federal Court in Sydney as a six-month class action against pelvic mesh manufacturer Johnson & Johnson takes place. A Senate inquiry is considering how mesh was cleared for use in Australia.

AUSTRALIA’S peak health care commission has told a Senate inquiry that up to 3000 Australian women have been left with injuries ranging from very serious to catastrophic after pelvic mesh surgery that is no longer recommended as a front line treatment.

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care was highly critical of specialist training, information to women about pelvic mesh risks, the treatment of women after serious mesh complications and the failure of doctors to respond when they sought help.

“The women have reported these problems. For anyone to suggest they haven’t reported them is nothing short of nonsense. It’s what people have done with those reports, or haven’t done with them, that is the issue,” commission chief executive, Adjunct Professor Debora Picone told the inquiry during a public hearing in Melbourne.

Commission clinical director Dr Robert Herkes said 40 women interviewed during consultations in four Australian cities had complications that were “undoubtedly overwhelming those women’s lives”.

“The bulk of the women were separated or divorced. Only one woman held down a job. For those women the complications were catastrophic,” Dr Herkes said.

Many of the women did not know they had been implanted with mesh devices until they searched for explanations for complications including chronic infections, disabling pain, erosion of the mesh into other organs and an inability to have sex.

“The women have reported these problems. For anyone to suggest they haven’t reported them is nothing short of nonsense. It’s what people have done with those reports, or haven’t done with them, that is the issue.

- Associate Professor Debora Picone

”

“We’ve been extremely concerned by the issues raised by the women we’ve talked with about the informed consent process, and particularly the informed consent process in relation to mesh surgery to treat prolapse,” Professor Picone said.

“In fact some of the conversations we’ve had with women, informed consent has really been absent. There’s no question about that in our minds.”

She described “so-called patient information leaflets” about pelvic mesh surgery as “hopelessly inadequate”, and said the commission felt very strongly that “major steps” needed to be taken on credentialing of doctors who implant mesh devices.

The Senate inquiry into pelvic mesh was called after Australian Pelvic Mesh Support Group founder Caz Chisholm and other members spoke with Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch. He campaigned for an inquiry into “one of the greatest scandals against women in Australian history”.

It is hearing evidence from women who received mesh implants through the vagina for prolapse treatment – now not recommended as a front line treatment after complication rates of at least 10 per cent – and mesh for incontinence, with lower complication rates and recognised evidence of safety and efficacy.

At the first hearing day two doctors who gave evidence conceded they should have declared they were to appear as expert witnesses for Johnson & Johnson in the company’s defence of a class action brought by more than 700 women after mesh surgery for incontinence and prolapse treatment.

Dr Anna Rosamilia told the inquiry she “should have disclosed” that she would be giving evidence for the company after appearing as a representative of Monash Health at the inquiry.

“I wasn’t aware that I needed to,” she said.

Dr Peter Dwyer, who will also give evidence for Johnson & Johnson, told the inquiry most of these companies have got strict ethical protocols that they stick to, before conceding he was an expert witness for the company.

Dr Dwyer told the inquiry that specialist training on mesh surgery was “falling between the gaps a bit”.

“If they’re placed in the wrong place… I mean, patients have died from these devices. They’ve got to be placed correctly,” he said.

Mesh manufacturers, which have been training doctors, should not be left to train them, he said.

Medical colleges had been “very happy to pass this on to special interest groups to manage these problems”, he said.

In response to a question from Mr Hinch about mesh company representatives being present in operating theatres while women are being implanted with mesh devices via the vagina, Dr Dwyer said “on occasion the rep does come into the operating theatre”.

“It’s not unusual for them to come into theatre at times. As long as they’re not directing the operation or interfering in other ways,” Dr Dwyer said.

The inquiry will hold another public hearing in Perth on August 25.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4832324/peak-health-body-scathing-on-mesh-history/

The Biggest Global Health Disaster of Our Time: Surgical Mesh

Women step up pressure to ban pelvic mesh implants - the biggest health disaster of our time

PUBLISHED: 20:06 06 June 2017  FiDA highlight

Kath Sansom

One in three women could be suffering in silence with mesh implant problems in a women’s health scandal that has been called the biggest disaster of our time.

One of the risks of pelvic mesh implants is loss of sex life due to chronic burning and cutting pains or chronic infec tion. This has led to marriages breaking down. The risks are unacceptable say campaigners globally. PHOTO: Pexels.

The shocking figures come as a Scottish surgeon this week told BBC Radio that mesh has a: “Whopping 15 per cent of women who develop serious complications.”

Speaking on the Kaye Adams show, Dr Wael Agur said: “No woman should get a life long disability just because of a surgical treatment of urinary incontinence.

“One life ruined is one too many and it’s absolutely unacceptable that a patient will take pain killers for the rest of her life.”

Instead, he said surgeons should move back to two alternative, time honoured surgical fixes, with risks which are acceptable.

The mesh implant scandal was featured on the BBC Victoria Derbyshire show in April. Seen here interviewing reporter Kath Sansom, Claire Cooper and Kate Langley.

Campaigners globally say pelvic mesh risk, quoted in all countries as one to three per cent, is vastly under estimated and based on studies which are either short term, run by medics with conflicts of interest or on animals who cannot speak of the pain or lost sex lives due to intense burning and cheese wire pains in their vaginas.

As the scandal unravels women are calling on governments worldwide to ban mesh implants, used to fix incontinence and prolapse, often caused by pregnancy and childbirth.

Campaigners, Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy fought for a suspension on mesh in Scotland in June 2014 but it was re-instated in March 2017 amid claims of a whitewash independent review - now being scrutinised by an independent expert.

Scottish MPs Neil Findlay and Jackson Carlaw have called this a disaster on asbestos proportions.

Leaked document of the English Group Working Party into mesh implants - group members agreed to try to reduce media impact of mesh relating to Yellow Card reporting. Patient reps have not been invited to any meetings for more than a year. PHOTO: Contributed

Welsh MP Owen Smith has called it the worst health scandal he has seen in his time as a politician.

Australian senator Derryn Hinch has said this is the biggest women’s health issue since the morning sickness drug thalidomide.

American lawyer Ben Anderson said: “This is the greatest women’s health crisis of our generation.”

New Zealand politician, Christine Rankin, who suffered agonising mesh implant pain and was told by her surgeon to get used to living with it, said: “Mesh is dangerous and it should be used with caution and the truth needs to be told about it.”

The MHRA commissioned a study into mesh complications. The result is the York Report from 2012.

Problems reported by women globally include leg pain making it difficult to walk far, pain in buttocks and groin making it painful to sit for long, the sharp-edged mesh cutting into tissues, nerves or even busting through vaginal walls, chronic infections and allergic reactions to the plastic material.

Some women are left disabled in wheelchairs and others have to use sticks to help them walk.

Studies with high risk figures include:

• An American study which show 42 per cent of women suffer complications - 20 per cent of them serious.

• An Italian study which found risk rate was 30 to 40 per cent.

• An American review which says the risk of pain following a mesh operation is 31 per cent.

• A Canadian study which found problems for 27.9 per cent of women.

• A Canadian review that says 22.3 per cent of women risk suffer painful infections.

• A Canadian study discovered poor outcomes for at least 15 per cent of women.

• The FDA say the hooks used to implant mesh can cause damage for up to almost 30 per cent of women.

Almost 20 years after the operation was launched, women say the world must wake up to the fact that mesh implants are not a “gold standard” fix.

Surgeon Firouz Daneshgari, said: “By any modern industrial standards of quality, a 30–40 per cent rate of adverse events is simply unacceptable.

“Can any of us imagine what would happen if one-third of all cars, computers, food packages, or any other commodity we purchase would fail or result in recalls?

“Moreover, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would remain in business after such recalls and failures.”

In the UK, the NHS and MHRA say the benefits outweigh the risk, which they say is as low as one in 100 women.

However, they base their figures on a review called the York Report, carried out in 2012.

Campaigners say the studies in it are flawed as many are short term - as little as six weeks post operation - so do not capture the true picture. Some problems don’t cut in until months or years later.

The UK York Report says the risk of losing or suffering a reduced sex life can be as high as 13.5 per cent while the risk of pain can be as high as six per cent and erosion as high as 5.8 per cent.

However, it averages out its figures of risk to just one to three per cent - a figure quoted in most UK patient information leaflets.

Sling The Mesh campaigner Ann Boni said: “How bad has this got to be before the authorities admit mesh has lifelong disabling risks?”

If a woman suffers complications, then removal is major surgery, Mrs Boni added, but said many surgeons push women to only have part of the mesh tape taken out.

A partial removal takes around half an hour while a full removal can take up to two hours - making it clear that partials are preferred on a cost basis.

A survey carried out by patient support group, Sling The Mesh, found that a full removal can relieve symptoms for almost six out of ten women - 57.14 per cent.

A partial removal, however, left only two out of ten women - 21 per cent - feeling like it had improved things.

Mrs Boni said: “Mesh is designed as a permanent implant and was launched onto the market without the benefit of robust, quality clinical trials. “No thought was given to how it was going to be removed when complications arose.

“It is easier to perform a partial removal but what must be impressed on surgeons is that if women seek removals they must be given full removals because at least the patient stands a chance of getting some quality of life back.

“Partial removals can leave women worse off months or years down the line as mesh continues to shrink, migrate into pelvic organs, harbour infection and the foreign body reaction continues to activate an adverse immune response”

“Surgeons know that if there are problems it is very difficult to fix. So why do they still implant it?”

• A study called Prospect said more than one in ten women suffer complications following a prolapse mesh operation.

• A study, which includes UK mesh removal specialist Suzy Elneil as author, says there should be a red card system for new medical devices. It also says not all women should be considered for mesh as previous pelvic or lower abdominal surgery may mean adhesions. Also some women may have a congenitally distorted pelvis or been traumatised by other causes such as childbirth. http://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(11)00868-2/pdf

http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/women-step-up-pressure-to-ban-pelvic-mesh-implants-the-biggest-health-disaster-of-our-time-1-5051244

Hernia Mesh Harm: Canada Health

Growing concerns in Canada over surgical mesh usage, recalls

Published Monday, April 17, 2017 10:00PM EDT CTV News.ca Staff  FiDA highlight

Warning: Some of the content may be disturbing to some viewers

There is growing concern over the number of recalls of hernia mesh in Canada, as patients speak out about complications they believe are linked to the surgical device.

Patients across the country contacted CTV News after a story on health problems linked to hernia mesh aired last month.

Patient Ivan Richardson said his hernia mesh has caused him ongoing, unexplained pain.

"You couldn't even touch me, I would cry, I mean literally cry and I went to the doctor and they kept saying they couldn't find nothing," Richardson said in an interview with CTV News.

That is until one doctor cut open his abdomen. There, what was supposed to be flat plastic mesh was rolled up inside Richardson's torso.

Even with part of it removed, Richardson said he still suffers.

"It will feel like a bunch of little needles," he said. "I assume that is the edge of the plastic mesh. I'm scared to do anything anymore, really."

Figures from Health Canada show that some 12 brands of hernia mesh have been recalled or removed from the Canadian market since 2000.

Some were linked to infections and perforations. There were 185 reports of serious injury and other complications, including three deaths.

Still, studies indicate the majority of hernia mesh patients have no problems, and its use is on the rise.

Data shows mesh helps improve recovery and lowers hernia recurrence.

But Dr. John Morrison, president of the Canadian Hernia Society, warns it may be used too often given the growing questions of the harm being done to some patients. In some cases, he said, mesh may not be required.

As part of his practice, Dr. Morrison often removes mesh that's shifted and punctured organs.

"I've seen pictures of it in the bladder, I've seen mesh in the stomach," Morrison told CTV News. "The mesh can erode into other organs over a period of time."

Morrison said studies show 10-20 per cent of people are left with chronic pain.

"It is a very serious phenomenon that's happened," Morrison said.

The physician said if the pain persists longer than three months, a hernia patient should find another physician or a hernia surgeon.

Morrison called the complications an "epidemic, and unfortunately, there's no end in sight, it's going to get worse because almost all hernias are now repaired with mesh."

Dr. Morrison advises patients who are scheduled for hernia surgery to "ask their surgeon if they're going to be using mesh, ask them exactly what type of hernia they have, why the mesh is being used.

He said prior to the operation, a patient should read on the internet the effects of the mesh being used on the hernia they're having repaired.

"An educated patient is the number one thing that will solve this problem," Morrison said.

There is research underway to try to better understand these emerging complications. The research will be of vital importance to the thousands of Canadians who have hernia surgery every year.

With a report by CTV medical specialist Avis Favaro and producer Elizabeth St. Philip