Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Mid-urethral Slings in 2014: Analysis of the Impact of Litigation on Practice

  • Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (R Dmochowski, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over 90,000 legal claims for complications related to transvaginal mesh have been filed to date. Safety issues specifically related to the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse have not been appropriately differentiated from the use of mesh for stress urinary incontinence by either attorneys or the media. This litigious environment and nebulous communication on the safety issues have led to patient and physician concern regarding mesh slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. The ultimate result is likely to be a decrease in use of the gold standard of care for stress urinary incontinence—the mid-urethral synthetic sling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Reynolds WS, Dmochowski RR, Penson DF. Epidemiology of stress urinary incontinence in women. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(5):370–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JM et al. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):230 e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox A, Herschorn S, Lee L. Surgical management of female SUI: is there a gold standard? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(2):78–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anger JT et al. Trends in surgical management of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries. Urology. 2009;74(2):283–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rogo-Gupta L et al. Trends in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence among female Medicare beneficiaries, 2002–2007. Urology. 2013;82(1):38–41.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeLancey JO. Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: the hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(6):1713–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Delancey JO, Ashton-Miller JA. Pathophysiology of adult urinary incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(1 Suppl 1):S23–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. FDA. Surgical mesh for the treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: FDA executive summary. 2011; Obstetrics & Gynecology Devices Advisory Committee Meeting. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/UCM270402.pdf.

  9. Delorme E. Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Prog Urol. 2001;11(6):1306–13 [Abstract].

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogo-Gupta L et al. Trends in surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse from 2000 to 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1105–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C. Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):103 e1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feeley, J. Coloplast said to pay $16 million to settle mesh lawsuits. Bloomberg News March 4, 2014; Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-04/coloplast-said-to-pay-16-million-to-settle-mesh-lawsuits.html.

  13. FDA. Public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. 2008 October 20, 2008; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm. The FDA’s 2008 Public Health Notification was the first of two communications that initially raised public concern about the use of transvaginal mesh in POP and SUI.

  14. FDA. Safety communications: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. 2011 July 13, 2011; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. In 2011, the FDA reiterated and strengthened their concerns about transvaginal mesh, particularly for the treatment of POP; however, the use of mesh for SUI was not included in this heightened warning.

  15. National Association for Continence. Surgical treatment for female stress urinary incontinence: FDA communication regarding surgery for SUI. 2012http://www.nafc.org/bladder-bowel-health/types-of-incontinence/stress-incontinence/surgical-treatment-for-female-stress-urinary-incontinence/%239.

  16. FDA. FDA’s role and activities. 2014; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm262301.htm.

  17. FDA. Considerations about surgical mesh for stress urinary incontinence. 2013; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/ucm345219.htm. After a review of literature and the MAUDE database, the FDA determined that the use of multi-incision mesh slings for SUI was both safe and effective.

  18. AUGS. Pelvic floor disorders registry fact sheet. 2014; Available from: http://pfdregistry.augs.org/.

  19. Johnson and Johnson. Form 10-K Annual Report. Filed February 23, 2011; Available from: http://www.investor.jnj.com/governance/sec-filings.cfm?DocType=Annual.

  20. Johnson and Johnson. Form 10-Q Quarterly Report. Filed August 1, 2014; Available from: http://www.investor.jnj.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=200406-14-89.

  21. Boston Scientific Corporation. Form 10-K Annual Report. Filed February 17, 2012; Available from: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62272&p=irol-sec&control_selectgroup=AnnualFilings.

  22. Boston Scientific Corporation. Form 10-Q Quarterly Report. Filed August 6, 2014; Available from: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62272&p=irol-sec&control_selectgroup=QuarterlyFilings.

  23. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Filling. Filed February 29, 2012; Available from: http://www.endo.com/investors/sec-filings.

  24. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. Form 10-Q Quarterly Report. Filed August 4, 2014; Available from: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123046&p=irol-SECText&TEXT=aHR0cDovL2FwaS50ZW5rd2l6YXJkLmNvbS9maWxpbmcueG1sP2lwYWdlPTk3MzI3OTUmRFNFUT0wJlNFUT0wJlNRREVTQz1TRUNUSU9OX0VOVElSRSZzdWJzaWQ9NTc%3d.

  25. C.R. Bard, Inc. Form 10-K Annual Filing. Filed February 23, 2012; Available from: http://investorrelations.crbard.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=91501&p=irol-sec&secCat01.1_rs=11&secCat01.1_rc=10&control_searchbox=&control_selectgroup=1.

  26. C.R. Bard, I. Form 10-Q Quarterly Report. Filed July 25, 2014; Available from: http://investorrelations.crbard.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=91501&p=irol-reportsOther.

  27. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. MDL Statistics Report - Number of Pending MDL Dockets by District. 2014; Available from: http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-August-15-2014.pdf.

  28. Chapple CR et al. Mesh sling in an era of uncertainty: lessons learned and the way forward. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):525–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Feeley, J. Bard, Doctor ordered to pay $5.5 million over implant. Bloomberg News 2012; Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-24/bard-must-pay-5-5-million-over-vaginal-mesh-implants.html.

  30. Scott v. Kannapan. 2012, Superior Court for Kern County, California.

  31. Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs. Medical Devices Law and Industry Report. 8 MELR, Issue No 18 2014; Available from: http://www.bna.com/medical-devices-law-p6787/.

  32. Gross v. Ethicon 2013, New Jersey Superior Court, Atlantic County.

  33. Cisson et al. v. C.R. Bard Inc. 2013, West Virginia Southern Court District.

  34. Lewis, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. 2014, West Virginia Southern Court District.

  35. Batiste v. McNabb. 2014, District Court for the 95th Judicial District, Dallas County Texas (Dallas).

  36. Feeley, J. Boston Scientific wins first vaginal-mesh injury trial. Bloomberg News, 2014.

  37. Albright v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2014, Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts.

  38. Feeley, J. Boston Scientific wins second trial over vaginal mesh. Bloomberg News, 2014.

  39. Cardenas v. Boston Scientific Corp. 2014, Middlesex County Superior Court, Massachusetts.

  40. Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc. 2014, West Virginia Southern Court District.

  41. Salazar v. Lopez 2014, District Court for Dallas County, 95th Judicial District of Texas (Dallas).

  42. McCarty, D. Boston Scientific mesh verdict halved by judge to $34 Million. Bloomberg, 2014.

  43. Tan, G., Endo puts medical-device unit AMS on the auction block. The Wall Street Journal, 2014.

  44. Feeley, J. Endo said to pay $400 million plus in vaginal-mesh accord. Bloomberg, 2014; Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-01/endo-said-to-pay-400-million-plus-in-vaginal-mesh-accord.html.

  45. AUGS. Patient privacy overview fact sheet. 2014; Available from: http://www.augs.org/p/cm/ld/fid=572.

  46. Nosti PA, Iglesia CB. Medicolegal issues surrounding devices and mesh for surgical treatment of prolapse and incontinence. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56(2):221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brown LK et al. Defining patients’ knowledge and perceptions of vaginal mesh surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(5):282–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Silverstein, A. In a Dallas courtroom, it’s big pharma vs. women over vaginal mesh. 2014; Available from: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/09/vaginal_mesh_dallas_trial_boston_scientific.php.

  49. Koski ME et al. Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology. 2014;84(3):575–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Koski ME, Rovner ES. Implications of the FDA statement on transvaginal placement of mesh: the aftermath. Curr Urol Rep. 2014;15(2):380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rice NT et al. Pelvic mesh complications in women before and after the 2011 FDA public health notification. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(6):333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. AUA. AUA position statement on the use of vaginal mesh for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. 2013; Available from: http://www.auanet.org/about/vaginal-mesh-for-sui.cfm. In 2013, the AUA released a position statement on the use of mid-urethral slings, again reaffirming the safety and efficacy of mesh MUS in the treatment of SUI. The statement concurred with the FDA that a thorough informed consent should be performed and surgeons should be rigorously trained in the use of MUS.

  53. Wideman, N. Surgical mesh and autoimmune disease connection. 2013 April 2013; Available from: http://tvtno.org/the-facts/surgical-mesh-and-autoimmune-disease-connection/.

  54. Walker-Journey, J. Transvaginal mesh may cause or worsen autoimmune diseases. 2013; Available from: http://www.rightinginjustice.com/news/2013/02/12/transvaginal-mesh-may-cause-or-worsen-autoimmune-diseases/.

  55. Nager C et al. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(3):123–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. SUFU and AUGS. Frequently asked questions by providers mid-urethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. cited 2014; Available from: http://www.sufuorg.com/docs/news/Provider-FAQs-MUS-for-posting.aspx.

  57. IUGA. Position statement on mid-urethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. 2014 [cited 2014 September 19]; Available from: http://www.iuga.org/?page=mus.

  58. Clemons JL et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nabhani J, G.D., The utilization of mesh in prolapse and incontinence surgery before and after the 2008 FDA public health notification in a private insurer population, in American Urological Association. 2014: Orlando.

  60. AUGS. AUGS transvaginal mesh informed consent toolkit. 2012; Available from: http://www.augs.org/p/cm/ld/fid=174.

  61. Myers E et al. Estimating the early impact of the FDA safety communication on the use of surgical mesh. South Med J. 2013;106(12):684–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. McFadden BL et al. Patient recall 6 weeks after surgical consent for midurethral sling using mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2099–104.

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

C. Perkins, K. Warrior, and L. McClelland declare that they have no conflict of interest.

K. Eilber and J. Anger declare that they are investigators for FDA 522 studies for Boston Scientific Corporation and American Medical Systems. J. Anger declares that she is an expert witness for Boston Scientific Corporation.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Colby E. Perkins

  2. Rush University Medical Center, 1653 W Congress Pky, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Krishnan Warrior

  3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 99 N. La Cienega Blvd, Suite #307, Beverly Hills, CA, 90211, USA

    Karyn S. Eilber & Jennifer T. Anger

  4. Hugh & Hazel Darling Law Library, UCLA School of Law, 385 Charles E. Young Dr., East, 1106 Law, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1458, USA

    Lynn McClelland

Authors
  1. Colby E. Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Krishnan Warrior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karyn S. Eilber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lynn McClelland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jennifer T. Anger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colby E. Perkins.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Perkins, C.E., Warrior, K., Eilber, K.S. et al. The Role of Mid-urethral Slings in 2014: Analysis of the Impact of Litigation on Practice. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 10, 39–45 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-014-0278-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-014-0278-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation