Transvaginal mesh systems were developed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (the dropping of the pelvic organs from their normal position due to weakening of the tissues holding them in place), resulting in stress urinary incontinence. In 2010, approximately 185,000 women had mesh implanted.
Women suing Johnson & Johnson (J & J) claim that their transvaginal meshes failed, “eroding” or pushing through the vaginal wall. Symptoms include infections, nerve damage, excruciating pain, and the inability to sit down or urinate without a catheter. The mesh is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove after implantation, resulting in life-long complications for some patients.
Plaintiffs and attorneys with transvaginal mesh lawsuits can receive financing from RD Legal Funding as soon as settlement amounts are determined. With complex litigation, there is often a delay in payment of awards/legal fees, even after a settlement has been reached. This is where RD Legal Funding’s post-settlement funding program provides a solution.Development of Transvaginal Mesh:
- First developed to repair hernias in the 1950s, gynecologists began using mesh for abdominal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in the 1970s. To vaginally repair pelvic organ prolapse, gynecologists began cutting the mesh to the desired shape and inserting it surgically in the 1990s.
- 2002: Ethicon markets Gynemesh PS, the first pre-configured surgical mesh product cleared for pelvic organ prolapse repair.
- 2004: Ethicon deletes negative information from its Clinical Expert Report; pays doctors to promote Ethicon mesh products to other doctors and to be lead authors on favorable articles produced by Ethicon.
- March 2005: Ethicon markets Prolift mesh without FDA approval, in spite of being advised by experts that it is unsafe.
- 2008: The FDA claims that Ethicon marketed Prolift without appropriate clearance; then clears Prolift, issuing a warning about complications which are rare.
- 2008 to 2010: The FDA receives 1,500 complaints of complications with transvaginal mesh and 7 deaths, five times the number received between 2005 and 2007.
- 2010: A study in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology reports that about 15 percent of women treated with vaginal mesh experienced potential complications; and concludes that the mesh did not provide greater benefits than the traditional surgical treatment in which a patient’s own ligaments are used to strengthen the vaginal wall.
- May 2011: A study in the New England Journal of Medicine states that transvaginal mesh results in higher rates of surgical complications and post-operative adverse events.
- July 2011: An FDA Safety Communication announces that “serious complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not rare.”
- September 2011: An FDA advisory panel recommends the re-classification of inter-vaginal meshes as “high risk.”
- January 2012: FDA orders the makers of implantable surgical mesh used to treat urinary incontinence in women to study their risks.
- June 2012: Claiming it is not a recall but a “global discontinuation,” Ethicon asks the FDA for permission to stop selling four vaginal mesh implants (Gynecare TVT Secur system, Gynecare Prosima Pelvic Floor Repair System, Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Floor Repair System, and Gynecare Prolift+M Pelvic Floor Repair System).
- January 2013: Gross v. Gynecare Inc., Atl-L-6966-10, Superior Court of Atlantic County, New Jersey (Atlantic City) goes to trial in New Jersey.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Funding SolutionsPlaintiffs and attorneys with slow-paying transvaginal mesh settlements should contact RD Legal Funding, for more information on accelerating awards/legal fees. We can be reached by phone at 1-800-565-5177. If you are ready to begin the application process, simply fill out the quick form at the top of this page.