Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation.
review · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 20227672.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.060.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Choosing to use mesh in vaginal reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence is perplexing in the face of recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings. In October 2008, the FDA alerted practitioners to complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh. Litigation is another concern. A Google search of "transvaginal mesh" results in numerous hits for plaintiff attorneys seeking patients with complications related to use of mesh. In light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court and strategies by manufactures of medical devices to escape liability, it is imperative that gynecologic surgeons using transvaginal mesh document proper informed consent in the medical records. The purpose of this commentary is not to deter gynecologic surgeons from using transvaginal mesh when appropriate, but to provide an overview of current medical-legal controversies and stress the importance of documenting informed consent.
Medical subject headings
- Informed Consent
- Postoperative Complications
- Suburethral Slings
- Surgical Mesh
- Urinary Incontinence, Stress
- Uterine Prolapse