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.