Advertisement

Medical Device Innovation and Errors: The Patient Perspective

  • Sherrie J. Palm
Chapter

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to scrutinize, dissect, and clarify the impact of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) transvaginal mesh kit (TVM) complications to patient safety and quality of life. The evolution of best practices rests on the recognition of the significance of patient input to analyze missteps and to evaluate next steps regarding the benefits and detriments of TVM healthcare practice, technology evolution, and regulatory procedures. Deliberate steps to evaluate and advance POP services and systems are significant to the evolution of women’s pelvic healthcare. Creating innovative solutions with an ear to patient voice will guide evolution of the POP workforce, and the demand for services worldwide to address the next significant shift in women’s health directives will undoubtedly increase significantly in the next millennium.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Uterus Quality of life Transvaginal mesh complications Community-based participatory research Regulatory evolution Urogynecology Allied health Patient safety 

References

  1. 1.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffith FL. Papyrus Kahun VI. 1, pages 1 and 2; medical papyrus 12th Dynasty. F PD-US. Wikipedia. Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus [Updated 2017 Sept 2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahun_Gynaecological_Papyrus. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.
  3. 3.
    Downing K. Uterine prolapse: from antiquity to today. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:649459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support. POPS online Facebook patient support forum. https://www.facebook.com/groups/184143085606/. Accessed 6 Jan 2018.
  5. 5.
    International Urogynecological Association. Three countries ban the use of vaginal mesh in prolapse surgery. IUGA. 2017;12(4). Released 2018 Jan 19. www.pelvicorganprolapsesupport.org/s/IUGA-mesh-ban-statement.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  6. 6.
    United States Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of vaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse; 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/UCM262760.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.
  7. 7.
    United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse; 2011. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm.
  8. 8.
    Souders CP, Eilber KS, McClelland L, Wood LN, Souders AR, Steiner V, Anger JT. The truth behind transvaginal mesh litigation: devices, timelines, and provider characteristics. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(1):21–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palm S. Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support. Pelvic organ prolapse: help and hope. http://www.pelvicorganprolapsesupport.org/pelvic-organ-prolapse-help-and-hope/. Accessed 2 Apr 2018.
  10. 10.
    Bø K. Urinary incontinence, pelvic floor dysfunction, exercise and sport. Sports Med. 2004;34(7):451–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Running USA. U.S. Road race trends. Road race finisher total experiences slight year-over-year decline in 2016. http://www.runningusa.org/2017-us-road-race-trends, Accessed 31 Mar 2018.
  12. 12.
    Competitor Running. New U.S. marathons and halfs report reveals participation is declining 2017 Jun 19 [Updated 2017 Jun 20]. http://running.competitor.com/2017/06/news/new-report-2016-marathon-half-participation_165419. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.
  13. 13.
    Muffly TM, Weterings R, Barber MD, Steinberg AC. Discrepancies in the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon workforce. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geynisman-Tan J, Brown O, Mueller M, Leader-Cramer A, Dave B, Bochenska K, et al. Changing referral patterns to urogynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(1):48–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zambare S. Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Slide 11. Medical developments. Size and shape of the US medical device industry. http://www.todaysmedicaldevelopments.com/article/size-and-shape-of-the-us-medical-device-industry/. Accessed 23 Mar 2018.
  16. 16.
    SelectUSA. Medical technology spotlight. https://www.selectusa.gov/medical-technology-industry-united-states. Accessed 22 Mar 2018.
  17. 17.
    Van Norman GA. Drugs and devices: comparison of European and U.S. approval processes. JACC. 2016;1(5):399–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Langen J. Medical device reporting. Pharmacovigilance Elsevier Life Sciences. 2016 Sept 27. https://www.slideshare.net/rocheam/medical-device-reporting-27-sep2016. Accessed 1 Apr 2017.
  19. 19.
    Donaldson, L. Foreword. In: World Health Organization. Patient safety workshop: learning from error. WHO/IER/PSP/2008.09. Geneva: WHO Press. p. 3. www.who.int/patientsafety/activities/technical/vincristine_learning-from-error.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2018.
  20. 20.
    Javadian P, Shobeiri SA. The disability impact and associated cost per disability in women who underwent surgical revision of transvaginal mesh kits for prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;13  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000489. [Epub ahead of print].

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse SupportMukwonagoUSA

Personalised recommendations