Skip to main content
Log in

Lessons Learned from Mesh Litigation for Prolapse and Incontinence

  • Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (R Dmochowski, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can cause significant impairment in quality of life and lead many women to seek surgical correction. These procedures are often performed using polypropylene mesh. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Notification to inform patients of adverse events related to the use of mesh placed in these repairs. Since this time, there have been almost 50,000 legal proceedings related to complications of polypropylene mesh in the urogynecology setting. Currently, the FDA is conducting further studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of polypropylene mesh, but it is still available for use in the repair of SUI and POP. Thus, patients should be carefully selected and counseled appropriately regarding conservative management options and alternative surgical therapies prior to mesh placement. As a result of the FDA recommendations, researchers are currently trying to develop a treatment alternative to mesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Togami J, Brown E, Winters JC. Vaginal mesh-the controversy. F1000 Med Rep. 2012;2:21.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mock S, Angelle J, Reynolds WS, et al. Contemporary comparison between retropubic midurethral sling and autologous pubovaginal sling for stress urinary incontinence after the FDA advisory notification. Urology. 2015;85:321–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sivaslioglu A, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:467–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. [http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm]. This website delineates the 2011 FDA Safety Communication and a summary of the MAUDE database reports.

  5. Kuhlmann-Capek M, Kilic G, Shah A, et al. Enmeshed in controversy: use of vaginal mesh in the current medicolegal environment. Female Pelv Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(5):241–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Drutz HP, Alarab M. Pelvic organ prolapse: demographics and future growth prospects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17 Suppl 1:S6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koski M, Rovner E. Implications of the FDA statement on transvaginal placement of mesh: the aftermath. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15:380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Urogynecologic surgical mesh implants. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm262301.htm].

  9. Premarket notification (510k): the US Food and Drug Administration [www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/deviceapprovalsandclearances/510kclearances/default.htm.

  10. Chapple C, Raz S, Brubaker L, et al. Mesh sling in an era of uncertainty: lessons learned and the way forward. Eur Urol. 2013;64:525–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. MAUDE-Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience: The US Food and Drug Administration. [www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm].

  12. Considerations for surgical mesh for SUI: the US Food and Drug Administration [http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm345219.htm].

  13. “FDA’s Roles and Activities” The US Food and Drug Administration [http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm262301.htm].

  14. Federal Register: reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse [www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/05/01/2014-09907/reclassification-of-surgical-mesh-for-transvaginal-pelvic-organ-prolapse-repair-and-surgical]. This website delineates the reclassification of mesh that was ordered after the results of the MAUDE database were evaluated.

  15. Wood L, Anger J. Urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2014;349:g4531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry: [www.pfdr.org].

  17. Koski M, Chamberlain J, Rossof J, et al. Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology. 2014;84:575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown LK, Fenner DE, Berger MB, et al. Defining patients’ knowledge and perceptions of vaginal mesh surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(5):282–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. GoogleTM search term “transvaginal mesh” performed September 26, 2015.

  20. Sadiq A, Mitchell S, Rosenblum N, et al. YouTube as a source for vaginal mesh information. J Urol. 2014;191(4S):e783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tenggardjaja C, Moore C, Vasavada S, et al. Evaluation of patients’ perceptions of mesh usage in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Urology. 2015;85:326–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yanagisawa M, Rhodes M, Zimmern P. Mesh social networking: a patient-driven process. BJUI. 2011;108:1539–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lawsuit filed Gynecare TVT bladder suspension tape (prolene mesh) [www.topix.com/forum/com/jnj/TTE0RAIRMP5EFC052/p228].

  24. Scott v. Kannappan, S-1500-CV-266034-WDE, Superior Court for Kern County, California.

  25. Nosti P, Iglesia C. Medicolegal issues surrounding devices and mesh for surgical treatment of prolapse and incontinence. Clin Obset Gyn. 2013;56(20):221–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Transvaginal mesh lawsuit: erosion, surgical, POP & SUI lawyer [www.drugwatch.com/transvaginal-mesh/lawsuit.php].

  27. American Urologic Association (AUA) position statement on the use of vaginal mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. 2012. [www.auanet.org/education/vaginal-mesh-for-pelvic-organ-prolapse.cfm]. This is the AUA position statement continuing to support the use of TVM for prolapse in certain instances and provides the necessary stipulations for use of TVM.

  28. American Urologic Association (AUA) position statement on the use of vaginal mesh for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. 2012[www.auanet.org/education/vaginal-mesh-for-sui.cfm]. This is the AUA position statement continuing to support the use of multi-incision mesh slings stating that there is good evidence for their use.

  29. Miller D, Milani AL, Sutherland SE. Informed surgical consent for a mesh/graft-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA grafts roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(supp 1):33. This outlines the IUGA consensus regarding informed consent and implantation practices.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 513: vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse,”. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1459–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapsed: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1337–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Maher C, Feiner B, Bassler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated Cochrane summary review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1455–57.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Murphy M, Hozberg A, van Raalte H, et al. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Timbrook Brown.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, E.T., Cohn, J.A., Kaufman, M.R. et al. Lessons Learned from Mesh Litigation for Prolapse and Incontinence. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 11, 73–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-016-0353-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-016-0353-8

Keywords

Navigation