Shortcomings of Vaginal Mesh Do Not Add Up – Are Docs Paying Attention?

//Shortcomings of Vaginal Mesh Do Not Add Up – Are Docs Paying Attention?

Shortcomings of Vaginal Mesh Do Not Add Up – Are Docs Paying Attention?

August 9, 2012, by Amy Gezon ~

Amy Gezon

In the weeks preceding the first landmark settlement against the manufacturers of surgical mesh implants used in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) (here) published an article promoting the prophylactic use of mesh slings at the time of hysterectomy.

The article describes the findings of the OPUS study comparing Gynecare TVT, manufactured by Ethicon, a Johnson & Johnson (J&J) subsidiary, against a sham procedure for the prevention of SUI. The NEJM’s publication of this manuscript promoting the use of this product comes on the heels of J & J’s announcement to discontinue sales of four Gynecare mesh products including the TVT Secur™.

The withdrawal of the four products follows a March 16th report by Bloomberg that J & J marketed one of their Gynecare mesh products without the approval of the FDA for three years beginning in 2005.

J & J’s withdrawal of Gynecare mesh products is only one of many shortcomings.

The OPUS trial fails to address concerns identified through the FDA’s meta-analysis of synthetic slings for SUI reported at a public hearing on September 9th, 2011 following a dramatic rise of serious adverse events reported between 2008 and 2010. The FDA noted a significant rise of serious complication reporting since they released a warning in 2008.

The FDA noted many serious adverse events did not occur until 3 years or later following mesh implantation, the OPUS followed patients for 12 months.  The study’s lead author John Wei, M.D. of the University of Michigan and co-authors report 6.3 women will need to receive the sling for 1 woman to benefit with international studies reporting a 10-1 ratio (reference

About half of the sling recipients in this study still developed SUI.  So as one woman benefits from a procedure for a condition of limited morbidity, she and 6-10 others expose themselves to complications including organ perforation, dyspaurenia (painful intercourse), urinary obstruction, long term catheterization, surgical revisions, nerve entrapment, severe chronic pain, erosion and mesh contraction. Additionally, emotional well-being deteriorates as a result of painful and degrading procedures, surgeries, examinations and impaired intimacy.

MDND reported on Dr. Wei’s study here.

The failure of this research team to address certain adverse events such as neuromuscular pain and dyspaurenia is not surprising, as few surgeons acknowledge any issues with mesh placed for the treatment of SUI. At the September 9, 2011 hearing, the FDA presented an analysis of the reported serious adverse events. The voluntary reports to the FDA by patients experiencing serious adverse events were not represented in this review. Of the 1,371 reports filed with the FDA only 95 were reported by health care providers or the facilities implanting the devices. With only 6% of events reported by providers, safety surveillance remains in the subjective discretion of industry.

The published manuscript in the NEJM marginalizes adverse events only briefly addressing a few of the known adverse events including incomplete bladder emptying and urinary infections. The OPUS study is spun positively however recent rulings in multidistrict litigation (MDL) against multiple manufacturers of vaginal mesh implants raise suspicion about the safety of these products.

A New Jersey Superior Court judge’s rejection of attempts to block the depositions of J & J’s top executives precedes the first landmark settlement involving a mesh sling for the treatment of SUI.

On July 23, 2012 a jury awarded Christine Scott 5.5 million to be paid by Bard and her surgeon who will pay 40% for damages (background story here).

The NEJM’s decision to publish this study riddled with controversy and so many shortcomings should concern all clinicians and healthcare consumers. Although thousands of lawsuits are pending, treating a condition of limited morbidity with a device identified by the FDA in 2008 to cause profound morbidity in some, has not changed the practices of most surgeons treating female urinary incontinence.

As Scott’s verdict did hold the surgeon partially accountable, perhaps surgeons will take greater interest in the care of their patients rather than relinquishing the future of their practice to industry and attorneys. #

Amy Gezon is a recovering mesh patient who had a Boston Scientific sling removed in November, 2010. Since then she has become a patient advocate and is beginning the third year of a master’s program  to become a Clinical Mental Health Counselor.  Prior to that she worked as a clinical research coordinator, managing a variety of pharmaceutical-sponsored  antibiotic clinical trials in a community based hospital for 16 years. 

By |2012-08-09T23:40:32+00:00August 9th, 2012|Op-Ed|4 Comments

About the Author:

I’m National News Editor, Jane Akre and I began Mesh Medical Device News Desk aka Mesh News Desk (MND) in the summer of 2011 just after the Food and Drug Administration issued an explicit warning to the public that complications associated with surgical mesh used for prolapse repair (POP) and incontinence (SUI) are NOT rare! That was the starting point for the litigation you see today and thousands of lawsuits have been filed by women whose lives have been altered, some permanently, by the use of this petroleum-based product.


  1. chris August 10, 2012 at 8:34 am - Reply

    A vaginal mesh should help the patient who has it. Any misconduct done by the doctor or the manufacturers of the product could be fatal to the patient’s condition.

    • Jane Akre August 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm - Reply

      Chris- How interesting for you to visit Mesh Medical Device News Desk. I note that you work for Coughlin Companies that helps manufacturers bring their product to market with the least amount of problem ( such as pesky FDA regulations that just slow down the process).

      How interesting to blame the doctor and not the defective product. Are there really that many bad docs? How effective will that argument be before a jury? Stay tuned and thanks for visiting….

      Jane a.

  2. David August 14, 2012 at 12:45 am - Reply

    @Jane a. Your totally right!….@Chris You know I was reading a 510k letter earlier and it dawned on me as I read the last line and I quote


    The MONARC device is substantially equivalent to the predica”

    My thoughts to this……..They are right its just as screwed up as the previous ones that were RECALLED!

    • EH September 2, 2012 at 11:22 am - Reply

      David – ROFLOL. And very obvious, why didn’t I think of that earlier? As a meshie, my life is gone as I knew it. I saw two Dr.’s (after so many who denied mesh was an issue and there was no reason for pain at all) who said the mesh was correctly placed. There is only one answer that makes sense to me – since it didn’t cause a problem for years – it shrank! This is a known property of mesh, just one of the many known properties. It is lethal to your life style. At times I’ve been so isolated, because of not being able to drive and all the pain meds I’m on that I thought just drop me in the hospital so I’ll have someone to talk to. I was talking and writing to a women who had this product and she died. Another meshie friend said to me “why not us?”. How this can be considered as a “prophylactic” product for no problems at the time is just unbelievable. Truly russian roulette. Let’s just tell them all – well you may be in the 70 some % that don’t seem to have a problem, don’t worry about death, or losing your life style or even your physical relationship with your husband – you’re on the right side of the odds! This thinking keeps addicts going. Just a thought.

Leave A Comment