DePuy Litigation: Statute of Limitations Depuy Lawsuits

By Independent Staff Writer

In August of 2010 DePuy Orthopedics, Inc. recalled two of its most popular hip replacement systems—the ASR XL Acetabular and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System. The recall came on the heels of a study which indicated the five-year failure rate of these products was as high as one in every eight patients. Severe pain and metal toxicity in the blood have required many of those who received a DePuy hip replacement to have revision surgery to replace the defective implant. Although the DePuy Pinnacle system has not yet been recalled it utilizes the same metal-on-metal design as the ASR, and many of those who received the Pinnacle implant have experienced the same symptoms including loosening of the hip implant, unsafe chromium and cobalt levels in the blood and extreme pain.  

What is a Statute of Limitations?
All lawsuits filed in the United States have an expiration period known as the Statute of Limitations. After this time period has passed an injured party is prohibited from filing a recovery case. These statutes are meant to guard companies from being exposed to lawsuits for long periods of time as well as to ensure the suits are filed while evidence is preserved and memories are clear. Depending on the state you reside in the statute of limitations for product liability can range from two to six years.

DePuy’s “Offer”
Following DePuy’s recall of their hip implants the company stated that patients who met specific criteria might be able to have some of their medical costs covered. Before any type of reimbursement is issued, however, DePuy will review patient’s medical records to determine whether the patient is eligible for reimbursement. The problem with this is that DePuy states the patient’s medical records must confirm a revision surgery is definitively related to the ASR recall rather than another cause such as a “traumatic fall.” In other words, the company is likely to attempt to blame the failure of the hip implant on a pre-existing condition, an underlying disease, physician error or misuse, therefore providing DePuy with sensitive medical records could well mean you would receive no money at all for the defective product implanted in your body.

Transvaginal Mesh Discussions Part 3: Problems and Warnings

By Independent Staff Writer

Problems Caused by Transvaginal Mesh Implants
Once the mesh is implanted in the body, it can move around leading to potentially serious injuries in the form of nearby organ punctures or frayed edges of the mesh eating into surrounding tissues. Some women have become septic as a result of the mesh implant, such severe infections, when not treated immediately, can lead to death in some cases. Other common complaints regarding the transvaginal mesh implants include extremely painful intercourse, scarring in the areas surrounding the mesh implant, a recurrence of the original pelvic organ prolapse, and chronic urinary infections and problems.

It is estimated that erosion of the transvaginal mesh implant into surrounding organs and tissues occurs in about 10 percent of all women who have undergone vaginal prolapsed repairs using mesh. In some cases the mesh material can be removed during another surgical procedure, however in some cases tissue may have grown in and around the mesh leading to multiple surgeries or interventions. Many women are not fully informed about alternatives to mesh implants, nor are they informed about the possible risks of transvaginal mesh implants.

Has There Been a Recall of Transvaginal Mesh Implants?
There are currently many, many manufacturers of transvaginal mesh, however the majority of the negative reports regarding the mesh center around the following mesh brand-names along with the manufacturer. Gynecare, Gynemesh and Ethico are Johnson and Johnson products, Avaulta, Pelvicol and Pelvisoft are manufactured by C.R. Bard, The Advantage Sling, Obtryx, Perfyx and Pinnacle are made by Boston Scientific, and Spar, Miniarc, Monarc, Apogee, Perigee and Elevate are made by American Medical Systems. It appears that the use of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse or SUI may never have been sufficiently tested; after gynecologists began using mesh in their surgical applications in the 90’s the FDA approved the mesh under a 510(k) clearance “loophole,” meaning the mesh was approved without proper testing and clinical trials.

The pelvic transvaginal mesh types currently bringing so much concern are very similar to the ProtoGen mesh which was recalled over a decade ago. In October of 2008 a Public Health Notification was issued by the FDA cautioning physicians about potential health issues resulting from the implantation of transvaginal mesh. At this point the FDA had received hundreds of reports of negative health issues from use of the transvaginal mesh implant. It was not until July of 2011, however, that the FDA issued an updated safety warning which indicated serious complications could arise from the use of transvaginal mesh implants, and that those complications were “not rare.” 

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits: What You Need to Know

By Independent Staff Writer

If you are a woman who has had a surgery in the past for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse, and you think your surgeon might have used a mesh implant during that surgery, you need to know the facts surrounding the mesh products. While highly similar mesh products have been used in surgical applications for decades—primarily in hernia surgeries—it was not until 1996 that mesh was approved for use in SUI surgeries and 2002 when the mesh was FDA approved for use in POP surgeries. Up until that time surgeons simply adapted the mesh used in hernia surgeries to suit other surgical applications.

Flaws in the Approval Process?
The mesh was able to be implanted into the vaginal wall without the necessity of prior controlled human studies through a sort of governmental loophole known as a 510(k) clearance approval. This type of less-stringent approval process allows a quicker approval without the necessity of clinical trials for medical devices which are substantially equivalent to already-approved devices. What was not anticipated, however, was the differences in pelvic region tissue as opposed to abdominal tissue. The fragile tissues in the pelvic region tend to be much more flexible, therefore the relatively inelastic mesh which works well in the abdomen tends to pull at the surrounding areas and erode through the more delicate tissues. 

Mesh Manufacturers on the Hook?
The transvaginal mesh surgeries are performed on as many as 70,000 women each year, leaving these women vulnerable to potential complications. The manufacturers of the mesh implants are currently the target of over 4,000 lawsuits under the belief they sidestepped their legal duty to ensure the mesh products were properly designed, tested and manufactured. Although some consumer advocate groups are calling for a recall of all mesh products when used in implantation in the vaginal wall, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have yet to reach a final conclusion as to whether mesh use in this application should be entirely discontinued. The FDA, while recognizing the risks of vaginal mesh are presently considering several options with an ultimate goal of protecting women from harm. The Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology published the results of a randomized controlled trial in August of 2010 regarding the use of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. At three months, there was a 15.6% vaginal mesh erosion rate with “no difference in overall objective and subjective cure rates.”

Under Fire: Transvaginal Mesh Manufacturers Defend Device amid Stern Criticism

By Independent Staff Writer

Recent FDA warnings regarding the controversial transvaginal mesh implant have resulted in a staunch defense of the device and its safety by the mesh manufacturers.  Although the FDA has talked of reclassifying the mesh implant from a Class II to a Class III, requiring much more stringent clinical testing as well as human trials, Boston Scientific, one of the makers of the mesh is strongly urging against that potential change. Boston Scientific continues to assert that mesh products are a viable—and valuable—option for surgeons who treat women with pelvic organ prolapse or urinary stress incontinence. Further, they believe that mesh products offer a safe and effective alternative to non-mesh treatments and that the FDA’s current 510(k) requirements for a Class II device are appropriate for the transvaginal mesh.

FDA Warnings
The first warning issued by the FDA came in 2008 and warned of possible complications associated with transvaginal mesh implants, stating such complications were “not rare”. A more recent warning by the FDA went even further when it contended that it was unclear whether pelvic organ prolapse repair using mesh implants had any real advantage over traditional POP surgery without mesh and could expose patients to potentially serious risks.

Mesh Manufacturer’s Concerns
During the FDA advisory meeting, another maker of the mesh, Cook Medical, filed a letter asking the FDA to consider giving different treatment to meshes made from different materials. This request was based on the theory that there are significant differences between non-absorbable synthetic mesh products as opposed to biologic grafts which are not cross-linked. Another maker of the mesh, Johnson and Johnson—who has come under serious fire recently due to complications from their mesh implants—agreed with prior FDA reports which recommended simple label changes could warn women and their physicians of the potential risks of mesh implants.

Both Johnson and Johnson and C.R. Bard have become the target of over 500 lawsuits filed by women who claimed the mesh used in their POP or SUI surgeries caused serious internal injuries and chronic pain. The lawsuits were a direct result of the over 4,000 adverse event reports which have been filed since 2005. Most all the makers of the mesh devices agreed that any new applications for transvaginal mesh products should be subject to clinical testing, but strongly resisted the proposed reclassification of their mesh product. Johnson and Johnson and Endo Pharmaceuticals suggested that new device versions require clinical trials while existing implants have safety tracking controls.  The manufacturers of mesh devices still believe strongly in their product, believing that while it may not be the best resolution for every patient in every case, it nonetheless offers a reliable and safe outcome for many women with pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. 

Does Age Play a Role in Transvaginal Patch Complications?

By Independent Staff Writer

In light of the many adverse events seen among women who have undergone transvaginal mesh surgeries in the past few years, the FDA is considering more stringent controls over approval of the device. Surgeons currently perform as many as 300,000 pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgeries every year, a large portion of those using mesh in the procedure.

Who Suffers From Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
Women who have gone through childbirth multiple times as well as those who have undergone a hysterectomy or are going through menopause all seem to be more susceptible to pelvic organ prolapse. Additionally, those with a family history of pelvic organ prolapse could be more likely to suffer from POP.  Although pelvic organ prolapse is generally a progressive condition which worsens and causes more serious symptoms, in some cases it does not progress and may actually improve with time. When estrogen levels diminish during and after menopause, pelvic organ prolapse is more likely to occur due to the fact that estrogen assists the body in making collagen, a protein which strengthens the supportive pelvic tissues. When there is less collagen in the body, the supportive tissues in the pelvis are more likely to appear, therefore when estrogen decreases, POP becomes more likely.

Is A Woman’s Age a Factor in Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
While older women will be more likely to suffer from POP simply by virtue of the fact that the connective tissues in the pelvic region have had more time to stretch and they have likely gone through childbirth and possibly even menopause or a hysterectomy, the surgery is also performed on women in their forties after giving birth multiple times. One particular study—done in 2002 which involved nearly 700 participants who received the transvaginal mesh patch—resulted in almost universal satisfaction following the procedure.  

Some questioned the validity of these results since over four-fifths of the participants were post-menopausal and the average age was nearly 64. This is considered a relatively narrow group of study participants, especially in light of the fact that the procedure is often done on women of childbearing age following the stress of multiple pregnancies. It is likely that the older women were having much more serious symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse as a result of many years of downward gravity on the pelvic ligaments, therefore the relief they received from the surgery could have been more significant.

Who is Most Likely to Have Problems Following a Transvaginal Mesh Implant?
In one of the most comprehensive studies done to date, including nearly twelve thousand women, nearly ten percent of those had some sort of erosion of the implanted mesh within twelve months of the surgery, regardless of whether synthetic or biologic mesh was used in the surgery. It was found that factors which could predispose women to erosion problems included being a smoker or having a hysterectomy simultaneously with their POP surgery. Overall health is also a significant factor in surgery results. When a vaginal approach was used to place the mesh—as opposed to an abdominal incision—there tended to be more adverse results. Older women tended to have more incidences of mesh erosion, even though they were the group who reported the greatest satisfaction with the surgical results. Low estrogen levels—which typically occur in older women—were a factor in erosion as were the size of the mesh implant and the surgical technique variations or skill of the surgeon. Women who kept their uterus during the procedure appeared to have a lowered risk of erosion complications.

Transvaginal Mesh and the FDA: How the Food and Drug Administration

By Independent Staff Writer 

Surgical Procedures Using Mesh

Mesh has been widely used in a variety of surgeries since the 1950’s, and was originally approved for use in abdominal hernia surgery.  Surgeons began altering the size and shape of the mesh devices, using them in women’s surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. It was not until 1996 that the mesh was approved specifically for SUI surgeries and 2002 when it was approved for POP surgeries. 

Mesh Complications

The FDA issued their first public health alert in 2008 detailing the potentially serious complications associated with the transvaginal placement of surgical mesh when used to repair pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence. The agency then updated the original warnings stating that mesh complications in transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse were actually not all that rare. They continued the warning by stating that when compared to traditional, non-mesh repairs for pelvic organ prolapse, there are no apparent benefits to using mesh.

To date, the FDA has received as many as 4,000 reports of serious complications associated with the mesh implant, particularly when used in the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse. These reported complications cover the period from January, 2005 through December, 2010, with almost three-fourths of those in the past three years. Many believe the numbers will continue to climb; a 2009 review in the International Urogynecology Journal stated the complication rate from use of vaginal mesh was from 7%-25% with those who smoked increasing that already high risk of complications as much as three times. 

Clinical Trial Stopped

Following the FDA’s warnings, a 2010 clinical trial which compared traditional surgical procedures used in repairing pelvic organ prolapse to transvaginal mesh procedures was halted before completion due to complications in over 15% of the patients whose surgery included mesh. The primary complication was mesh erosion, a serious and even potentially fatal medical injury which typically requires one or more surgeries to correct and repair. Regarding this study one of the lead authors of the report stated that in the end not only were there more complications, but the mesh didn’t prove to work any better than traditional surgery. 

Is Inappropriate Selection of Patients an Issue in Mesh Damages?

Some believe that one of the primary problems in the mesh controversy is the criteria used to select patients for the transvaginal mesh surgery which repairs pelvic organ prolapse.  Because the mesh device seemed so promising for women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse it may have been inappropriately used for younger, active women who could have received greater benefits from alternative types of non-vaginal surgery. Mesh surgeries are more appropriate for use in older, less sexually active women who either cannot undergo abdominal surgery or who has suffered a recurrent prolapse after a past surgery.