Risks of Using Avaulta Outweigh Benefits


, , , , , , , ,

Transvaginal mesh implants have been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) for several years and counting. Physicians first used these devices in the 1950s to treat abdominal hernias. By the 1970s, doctors began using them in surgeries to treat female POP and SUI. As the use of mesh devices in POP and SUI surgeries increased in popularity in the late 1990s, medical companies began to develop and market mesh products specifically configured to treat the above mentioned medical conditions. Unfortunately, some of these marketed devices have reportedly caused problems, resulting in vaginal mesh lawsuits.

Avaulta is a mesh implant developed and distributed by C.R. Bard, Inc. Just like other vaginal mesh devices, it is mostly used in surgeries for treating female POP and SUI. Moreover, along with other mesh devices like Johnson & Johnson’s Gynecare mesh systems and Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle pelvic mesh system, Avaulta has grown in popularity over the years. As a matter of fact, reports say over 70,000 women were implanted with such mesh devices in 2011 alone. Regrettably, many have now turned to alternative treatments due to circulating reports of complications associated with vaginal mesh implantation.

Vaginal mesh devices have been under public scrutiny ever since patients started developing minor and major side effects, reports say. Apparently, a number of complications were reportedly discovered apart from the ones listed on the device’s packaging label, which included possible pain in the groin area, headaches, infection, and bleeding.  Purported mesh complications include mesh erosion, device failure, recurrent POP, bladder perforation, internal bleeding, and severe pain during urination. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the number of complaints submitted to the agency has currently reached more than a thousand, prompting it to request for the withdrawal of certain mesh devices from the market. C.R. Bard was unfortunately among the companies that were told to cease sales until they have conducted further clinical trials, which the company did so on July 1, 2012.

C.R. Bard maintains that its mesh products are working as intended, dismissing some of the accusations made against the company. Some physicians also support the company’s statements, agreeing that vaginal mesh implants have more advantages than disadvantages.  However, other medical professionals believe that there are, indeed, problems with the design of some of the devices. Detailed information regarding this subject and the lawsuits involving vaginal mesh implants may be found on the sites of lawyers who specialize in personal injury cases like the Rottenstein Law Group’s rotlaw.com.

Settlement Reached in the First Ethicon Vaginal Mesh Case


, , , , , ,

A vaginal mesh lawsuit against surgical equipment manufacturer Ethicon has recently been settled, reports say. Legal experts believe that a wave of lawsuits will most likely follow in the near future. Apparently, vaginal mesh implants have been the center of numerous lawsuits which claim that these devices can potentially cause serious complications. Among the many companies that manufacture vaginal mesh devices, almost none have escaped litigation.


Vaginal mesh implants, also known as transvaginal mesh implants, are devices used in vaginal repair surgeries. They were first introduced on the market in the 1950s, during which many women were suffering from a medical condition known as pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Aside from treating POP, the implants have also been used in surgeries for treating a health condition known as stress urinary incontinence. Over the years, a number of companies have been involved in the mass production of vaginal mesh devices. Some of the largest companies include Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon, Sofradim, Coloplast, and Mentor Corporation.


Reports reveal that vaginal mesh devices have the risk of embedding themselves into the soft tissue of implant patients, causing damage and infection. Moreover, the devices have been known to cause other adverse effects, including organ perforation, recurrent POP, and device extrusion. Patients suffering from these complications may need to undergo a number of surgeries in order to repair the damages.


The plaintiff who filed the above mentioned Ethicon vaginal mesh lawsuit was a woman named Linda Gross. She has been suffering from POP prior to her vaginal repair procedure seven years ago. According to her lawsuit, Gross was implanted with the Gynecare Prolift, which is a device manufactured by Ethicon Inc. Following her procedure, she suffered from constant pain and bladder problems. She then decided to have the problematic vaginal mesh implant removed from her system five months after her surgery.


Gross reportedly underwent 22 surgical procedures to remove her faulty vaginal mesh implant. Her physicians allegedly told her that the device did not work as successfully as they had originally hoped.


After her ordeal, Gross filed a vaginal mesh lawsuit against Ethicon Inc., demanding compensation for all the damages she has suffered.  She won the case and was awarded over $11 million.  The manufacturer of her vaginal mesh device, Ethicon, said in a statement that the company plans on appealing the court’s final ruling. Additional information regarding Gross’ lawsuit and other lawsuits involving vaginal mesh devices may be found on the websites of personal injury attorneys, such as the New York-based Rottenstein Law Group’s rotlaw.com.


Lawsuit Loans for Granuflo Victims


, , , , , ,

Granuflo is a product manufactured by Fresenius Medical care used during hemodialysis to treat chronic and acute renal failure.  This dialysis solution has a unique mixture that included acid concentrate and bicarbonate concentrate that must be controlled carefully.  Granuflo formulations also use sodium diacetate.  There had been claims that Granuflo can produce excess bicarbonate in a patient’s bloodstream during dialysis that can lead to serious complications including increased pH level in the body, also known as Metabolic alkalosis.  This condition can lead to cardiac arrest, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, hypercapnia, hypokalemia, and death.

More Granuflo lawsuit plaintiffs are expected to come forward in the future.  People who suffered from the side effects associated with the use of Granuflo or those who had lost their loved ones with the use of this dialysis product are continuing to file lawsuits. In fact, a Multidistrict litigation (MDL) had been established to ensure effective pre-trial proceeding, and the MDL for Granuflo had been appointed to Massachusetts’ U.S. District Court.  This will help discover how the proceedings may result for next lawsuit plaintiffs.  Some of these plaintiffs got information about Granuflo lawsuits through personal injury law firm sites like the Rottenstein Law Group’s rotlaw.com.

Cash Funds for Granuflo Lawsuit Plaintiffs

For many patients injured by Granuflo, the only option they have is to file a claim for loss and damages.  However, to some, filing a lawsuit may not feel like a feasible option due to financial burden associated with it as well as the uncertainty on how long the litigation process will proceed before settlements can be reached.  Many claimants are exploring the benefits of pre-settlement advance loans.  These are cash advances being granted prior to the settlement which can help the plaintiff in becoming free from financial difficulties, fund their cases, and help them pay their current or future medical treatment as well as their past medical bills.  The amount being granted is based on the estimated amount that the plaintiff will receive once settlement had been reached.

Without this funding, some claimants may feel compelled to accept a lower sum of settlement from the defendant.  Also, the best thing about this pre-settlement loans is that it is a “non-recourse” loans which means that even if the plaintiff did not win the case, the plaintiff is not obliged to pay anything.  This financial aid can be approved in as fast as 24 hours, and the only requirements to qualify are proof of financial need and a strong lawsuit involving Granuflo.