Attorney Jessica Paluch-Hoerman, founder of TruLaw, has over 28 years of experience as a personal injury and mass tort attorney, and previously worked as an international tax attorney at Deloitte. Jessie collaborates with attorneys nationwide — enabling her to share reliable, up-to-date legal information with our readers.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and legal experts at TruLaw and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Jessie Paluch, you can do so here.
TruLaw does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us by using the chat on the bottom of this page. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
Question: Why do some transvaginal mesh implant devices fail?
Answer: Transvaginal mesh implant devices can fail due to several factors, such as inflammation from the body’s reaction to foreign materials, mesh contraction or shrinkage over time, improper surgical placement, and other adverse health effects.
Vaginal mesh implant devices were designed to provide additional support to weakened vaginal walls and pelvic floor structures but have been associated with numerous complications including mesh erosion, severe pelvic pain, infection, and organ perforation.
On this page, we’ll answer this question in further depth, major causes of transvaginal mesh implant device failure, complications associated with defective transvaginal mesh implants, and much more.
Transvaginal mesh implants were developed to treat common female pelvic floor disorders that affect millions of women.
These surgical mesh devices are implanted through the vagina to reinforce weakened vaginal tissue in cases of pelvic organ prolapse where organs such as the bladder, uterus, or rectum drop from their normal position.
Similar mesh products are also used to create supportive slings for the urethra to treat stress urinary incontinence.
Despite FDA warnings dating back to 2011, many of these devices continued to be marketed and implanted without adequate testing or patient information about potential risks.
If you or someone you love has experienced complications from a transvaginal mesh implant, you may qualify to seek compensation for your injuries.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine your eligibility to join others in filing a Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit today.
Our Transvaginal Mesh attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting clients through the process of filing a Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit.
With extensive experience in product liability cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with litigation leaders and medical experts to prove how defective mesh implants caused you harm.
TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, revision surgeries, pain and suffering, lost income, and other damages resulting from your transvaginal mesh injuries.
We understand the physical and emotional toll that Transvaginal Mesh complications have on your life and provide the personalized guidance you need when seeking justice.
Meet our lead Transvaginal Mesh attorney:
At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.
That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.
If you or a loved one experienced pain, bleeding, infection, organ perforation, mesh erosion, or other complications from transvaginal mesh implants, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing a Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit today.
Transvaginal mesh implants were designed to provide support to organs in the pelvic region that have become displaced due to weakened tissues.
Despite being FDA approved for certain uses, many of these devices have demonstrated serious safety and effectiveness concerns requiring ongoing surgical management after implantation.
Originally, many mesh devices were cleared through a less rigorous approval process than is now required for these implants.
Manufacturers like American Medical Systems developed mesh products without sufficient premarket approval application data to fully understand long-term outcomes.
Early clinical trials for mesh products used to treat POP (pelvic organ prolapse) were often limited in scope and duration, failing to identify complications that would emerge years later.
In 2016, the FDA reclassified transvaginal mesh for POP repair as Class III (high-risk) devices, requiring more rigorous testing before approval.
Common design flaws in transvaginal mesh products include:
Many patients have reported that the mesh itself caused more problems than the condition it was meant to treat.
Even when mesh devices performed as designed, surgical technique problems have contributed significantly to complications in many women.
Procedures like midurethral sling placement for SUI repair require precise positioning to avoid organ damage.
Surgical technique failures often stem from:
The combination of product design issues and surgical technique problems has resulted in thousands of women requiring revision surgeries or complete mesh removal.
Unlike SUI repair procedures using midurethral slings, which have better long-term outcomes, transvaginal mesh for POP repair has demonstrated significantly higher complication rates.
The FDA continues to monitor mesh products through post-market surveillance to identify potential safety risks that weren’t apparent during initial approval processes.
Transvaginal mesh implants were marketed as an effective solution for repairing weakened tissue in the pelvic floor.
Recognizing the signs of mesh failure early can help patients seek prompt medical intervention before complications worsen.
After an FDA advisory committee meeting in 2011, the agency discovered that transvaginal mesh complications were neither rare nor unpredictable as previously thought.
The FDA issued warnings that patients who received mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair should be vigilant for specific symptoms that may indicate mesh failure.
Pain during everyday activities, especially heavy lifting or bending, often signals mesh erosion or contraction.
Common warning signs of mesh failure in POP repair include, but are not limited to:
When mesh properties like pore size are inadequate, the body’s inflammatory response can lead to serious problems, including infection and organ perforation.
An exposed piece of mesh may be visible or palpable during examination, confirming mesh erosion through vaginal tissue.
Mini slings and other mesh products used for stress urinary incontinence have shown different complication profiles than those used for POP repair.
In 2019, the FDA announced stronger regulations for mesh manufacturers after determining that available products had not demonstrated reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
Distinctive signs of mesh failure in SUI treatments include:
Mesh complications may develop immediately after surgery or appear years later, making ongoing awareness essential for patients.
When mesh used for SUI treatment fails, many patients report a combination of pain and recurring incontinence that significantly impacts their quality of life.
Patients experiencing any of these symptoms should consult with their healthcare provider promptly, as addressing mesh complications early often leads to better outcomes.
Transvaginal mesh lawsuits are being filed by women across the country who suffered serious complications from pelvic mesh implants used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.
TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit.
A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit include:
If you or a loved one suffered pain, infection, bleeding, organ damage, or other complications after receiving a transvaginal mesh implant, you may be eligible to seek compensation.
Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify for the Transvaginal Mesh lawsuit today.
Transvaginal mesh implant devices can fail due to several factors, such as inflammation from the body’s reaction to foreign materials, mesh contraction or shrinkage over time, improper surgical placement, and other adverse health effects.
Transvaginal mesh implant devices were designed to provide additional support to weakened vaginal walls and pelvic floor structures but have been associated with numerous complications including mesh erosion, severe pelvic pain, infection, and organ perforation.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed alleging transvaginal mesh implant devices caused complications like chronic pain and nerve damage.
Manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, have faced allegations of marketing products as safe despite FDA warnings issued in 2011 about potential risks.
Many cases have resulted in significant settlements for affected patients.
During transvaginal mesh implantation, surgeons typically use laparoscopic techniques, inserting instruments through small incisions.
The mesh is carefully attached to the vaginal walls and sometimes to the sacrum, suspending the vagina or cervix back into its normal anatomical position to treat conditions like pelvic organ prolapse.
Non-absorbable transvaginal mesh implant devices remain in the body indefinitely, though they may gradually degrade over time.
These devices provide permanent reinforcement for pelvic organs.
Some mesh types are absorbable and will naturally dissolve while losing structural strength over a predetermined period.
Transvaginal mesh implant devices for prolapse repair come in several varieties:
Complications from transvaginal mesh implant devices may include chronic pelvic pain, mesh erosion through vaginal tissues, infection, urinary problems, and painful intercourse.
Some patients experience nerve damage, organ perforation, or recurrence of prolapse or incontinence, potentially requiring revision surgeries or complete mesh removal.
Alternative treatments for pelvic organ prolapse include non-surgical options like pelvic floor physical therapy and pessary devices.
Surgical alternatives involve native tissue repairs that use the patient’s own ligaments and tissues rather than mesh.
These approaches may reduce risks associated with transvaginal mesh implant devices while still addressing prolapse symptoms.
Managing Attorney & Owner
With over 25 years of legal experience, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman is an Illinois lawyer, a CPA, and a mother of three. She spent the first decade of her career working as an international tax attorney at Deloitte.
In 2009, Jessie co-founded her own law firm with her husband – which has scaled to over 30 employees since its conception.
In 2016, Jessie founded TruLaw, which allows her to collaborate with attorneys and legal experts across the United States on a daily basis. This hypervaluable network of experts is what enables her to share the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date legal information with our readers!
You can learn more about the Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit by visiting any of our pages listed below:
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TruLaw, we fiercely combat corporations that endanger individuals’ well-being. If you’ve suffered injuries and believe these well-funded entities should be held accountable, we’re here for you.
With TruLaw, you gain access to successful and seasoned lawyers who maximize your chances of success. Our lawyers invest in you—they do not receive a dime until your lawsuit reaches a successful resolution!
AFFF Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), commonly used in firefighting.
Claims allege that companies such as 3M, DuPont, and Tyco Fire Products failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of AFFF exposure — including increased risks of various cancers and diseases.
Depo Provera Lawsuit claims are being filed by individuals who allege they developed meningioma (a type of brain tumor) after receiving Depo-Provera birth control injections.
A 2024 study found that women using Depo-Provera for at least 1 year are five times more likely to develop meningioma brain tumors compared to those not using the drug.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit claims are being filed against Indivior, the manufacturer of Suboxone, a medication used to treat opioid addiction.
Claims allege that Indivior failed to adequately warn users about the potential dangers of severe tooth decay and dental injuries associated with Suboxone’s sublingual film version.
Social Media Harm Lawsuits are being filed against social media companies for allegedly causing mental health issues in children and teens.
Claims allege that companies like Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap designed addictive platforms that led to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues without adequately warning users or parents.
Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits are being filed against manufacturers of transvaginal mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Claims allege that companies like Ethicon, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific failed to adequately warn about potential dangers — including erosion, pain, and infection.
Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuits involve claims against 3M — alleging their surgical warming blankets caused severe infections and complications (particularly in hip and knee replacement surgeries).
Plaintiffs claim 3M failed to warn about potential risks — despite knowing about increased risk of deep joint infections since 2011.
Baby Formula NEC Lawsuit claims are being filed against manufacturers of cow’s milk-based baby formula products.
Claims allege that companies like Abbott Laboratories (Similac) and Mead Johnson & Company (Enfamil) failed to warn about the increased risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in premature infants.
Here, at TruLaw, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Alongside our partner law firms, we have successfully collected over $3 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?