Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit

This page is for women who are considering bringing a vaginal mesh lawsuit in 2025.

Vaginal mesh litigation has become one of the most significant mass torts in recent history, involving thousands of lawsuits against multiple transvaginal mesh (TVM) product manufacturers.

This article provides a history of the vaginal mesh litigation and gives you the lay of the land for bringing a vaginal mesh lawsuit in 2025. Our lawyers also discuss our average settlement amounts and jury payouts for victims with successful claims.

In 2025, our lawyers are still new vaginal mesh lawsuits from women who suffered complications and injuries related to a vaginal, transvaginal, or pelvic mesh implant. Contact us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation, or contact us online.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits News and Updates in 2025

Why Larger Settlements Now Than Before?

April 24, 2025:  The Eleventh Circuit is currently considering whether a district court prematurely barred pelvic mesh injury claims on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiff argues that it was not until 2015—eight years after the initial mesh implantation—that any medical provider suggested the devices could be the source of her chronic pain. Until then, she was repeatedly told her symptoms were caused by a herniated disc and underwent years of misdirected treatments, including multiple back surgeries. When a physician finally linked her pain to the mesh in 2015, she promptly sought legal counsel and filed suit.

At issue is whether isolated references in medical records—such as a 2010 comment expressing concern or a 2012 request to “release” part of the mesh—are enough to start the legal clock under New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations. Defense counsel insists these notations show she suspected the mesh all along. But suspicion, in the absence of professional confirmation, is not knowledge. The court pressed both sides, with one judge observing that suspicion alone may be sufficient if the standard is awareness, not certainty.

Still, this case illustrates the core challenge many plaintiffs face in medical device litigation: how is a layperson supposed to know what even their doctors have misdiagnosed? While the trial court viewed the timeline as too delayed, the appellate panel seems more attuned to the nuances of medical misdirection and the reality that patients rely on professional guidance.  This is how it works in the real world.

This appeal presents a critical opportunity to clarify when a claim truly accrues in cases where injury attribution is medically complex and easily misunderstood. In a just world, the question of whether a patient should be penalized for trusting her doctors has an obvious answer.

Why Larger Settlements Now Than Before?

April 22, 2025: Standalone vaginal mesh lawsuits are yielding higher settlements than those consolidated in MDLs. The reason? The best cases are being filed individually, allowing for personalized evidence and greater jury sympathy.  MDLs, while efficient, often result in global settlements that average out payouts. In contrast, standalone cases have trial dates, forcing defendants to negotiate seriously to avoid massive jury verdicts. Manufacturers, once dismissive of patient suffering, now seem more interested in settling. Turns out, nothing improves corporate listening skills quite like huge verdicts.

What a Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit Is Really About

April 12, 2025

At its most basic level, a transvaginal mesh lawsuit is about obtaining compensation.  Every civil injury lawsuit is about financial compensation.  No one should run from this.  But for many women filing pelvic mesh lawsuits, the real concern is not just about compensation. It is about whether someone will finally acknowledge that what happened to them was real.

In recent depositions in ongoing pelvic mesh cases, plaintiffs’ lawyers have begun uncovering internal documents showing the defendants flagged “excessive tension” complaints from doctors as early as 2009. These internal reports were never made public. They were not shared with the FDA, and they were certainly not included in the patient brochures women relied on when making their decisions.

Why does that matter? Because many of these women—like so many others—were told for years that their pain was “just part of aging,” “just pelvic floor dysfunction,” or, even more commonly, “in their head.”

One defense expert recently admitted under oath that there is “no standardized protocol” across hospitals for recognizing mesh erosion, even though it is a well-documented complication. This means many women were misdiagnosed for years before anyone even looked at the mesh as a possible cause. That kind of delay can be devastating not just physically, but emotionally.

These cases are not just about science. They are about credibility. For many plaintiffs, the driving question is not, “How much is this case worth for settlement?” It is, “Will anyone ever admit what this did to me?” The good news is that judges and juries are starting to hear these stories in fuller context, and defense teams are being forced to explain away inconsistencies that used to go unchallenged.

So what really matters right now? If you are someone considering a claim, or watching from the sidelines, the most important thing is to document how long you have been dealing with symptoms, especially if you were told it was something else. These misdiagnoses are not just unfortunate—they may be key evidence. Because as this litigation evolves, the women at the center of it are not just looking for money. They are looking for recognition, transparency, and finally, a record that reflects the truth.

New Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit

February 5, 2025: In a new lawsuit filed in Minnesota state court, an Oregon woman alleges she suffered severe injuries due to a defective pelvic mesh implant manufactured by Coloplast and its subsidiaries. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiff underwent surgery in April 2022 to treat stress urinary incontinence, during which she was implanted with a Coloplast Altis sling. She later developed complications, including mesh erosion, chronic pain, infections, and urinary dysfunction, ultimately requiring revision surgery in September 2024.

The complaint alleges that Coloplast negligently designed, manufactured, and marketed its pelvic mesh products without adequate testing or warnings, despite knowing the material could cause severe foreign body reactions, chronic inflammation, and long-term disability. The plaintiff further claims Coloplast misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the product, engaged in fraudulent marketing, and violated Minnesota consumer protection laws. She seeks compensatory damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other economic losses, as well as punitive damages and disgorgement of profits.

Pre and Post-Market Failures

February 3, 2025: The vaginal mesh crisis did not arise overnight. It is the result of failures at two critical points—before the product was introduced to the market and after it was already being used by patients.

Manufacturers did not conduct the rigorous testing that these products required. Many vaginal mesh devices were rushed through the FDA’s 510(k) process, which allowed them to bypass extensive clinical trials. Approval was granted based on their similarity to existing products rather than solid evidence of safety. The flawed assumption was that mesh materials used for hernia repairs would function just as effectively in the pelvic floor, despite the anatomical and functional differences between these regions. That assumption proved to be dangerously incorrect.

Even after the mesh was in widespread use, manufacturers and regulators failed to adequately monitor and respond to emerging issues. Adverse events such as mesh erosion and organ perforation were either reported late or, in some cases, not reported at all. Follow-up studies were limited, focusing primarily on short-term outcomes while ignoring the long-term complications of chronic pain, inflammation, and permanent injury that patients experienced years later.

As a result of these systemic failures, patients were left to endure preventable complications, suffering due to the negligence of transvaginal mesh manufacturers who prioritized profits over patient safety. When the extent of the harm became undeniable, they did not act swiftly to correct the problem but instead delayed meaningful responses.

If you are pursuing a vaginal mesh lawsuit, these failures form the foundation of your case, illustrating how severely manufacturers and regulators neglected their duty to protect patients. This legal battle is not just about obtaining compensation—it is about demanding accountability and ensuring that no one else is forced to endure the suffering that you have experienced.

Why Minnesota and Massachusetts?

January 25, 2025: Minnesota and Massachusetts have become key battlegrounds for these cases, and it is no accident.

The reason? We can keep these cases in state court, where plaintiffs have a stronger footing. The law says that if you sue a corporation in the state where it is either incorporated or headquartered, the company cannot remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Coloplast is based in Minnesota, and Boston Scientific is headquartered in Massachusetts, which means lawsuits filed in those states stay in those states. And that is exactly why we are seeing an influx of transvaginal mesh cases in these two states.

State courts often provide a fairer playing field for plaintiffs. Unlike federal multidistrict litigation (MDLs), which can seem like a slow-moving process favoring large corporations, state courts tend to move faster, give more control to individual plaintiffs, and allow local juries to decide cases. These companies have spent years trying to sweep the transvaginal mesh disaster under the rug. Filing in Minnesota or Massachusetts just makes sense in most of these lawsuits.

Settlement Talks

January 15, 2025: We have received rumors from multiple sources that defendants are approaching individual law firms to settle their inventory of transvaginal mesh lawsuits. We will let you know if and when we receive more concrete information.

Defense Verdict in Pelvic Mesh Malpractice Case

January 3, 2025: A jury in Oregon issued a defense verdict in a case in which the plaintiff accused a urologist and a hospital of medical malpractice for negligently implanting a defective pelvic mesh implant. The plaintiff alleged that Dr. Michael Lemmers and the Legacy Health hospital network were negligent for failing to obtain her informed consent before implanting Boston Scientific’s “Uphold Lite” mesh device to treat her pelvic organ prolapse in 2019. Informed consent malpractice cases are notoriously difficult to win, so this is not a big surprise.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit FAQs

Origins of Vaginal Mesh Use and Problems

Transvaginal mesh is a medical device used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. These conditions occur when the pelvic muscles and tissues weaken, causing organs like the bladder, uterus, or rectum to descend into the vagina. To address this issue, surgeons began using surgical mesh in the 1970s for the abdominal repair of POP. In the 1990s, the use of mesh was expanded to treat SUI through a transvaginal approach.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first TVM product for marketing in 1996 through the 510(k) clearance process, which allows medical devices to be approved without clinical trials if they are considered substantially equivalent to an existing approved device. This paved the way for other manufacturers to enter the market, and by the 2000s, several companies were producing TVM products.

However, soon after the introduction of TVM products, patients and healthcare professionals began reporting complications associated with their use. Some of these complications included mesh erosion (where the mesh wears through the vaginal wall), organ perforation, infection, chronic pain, and urinary problems. These complications often required multiple revision surgeries, causing significant physical and emotional distress for the affected women.

Vaginal Mesh Complications

Women have been through a lot with the defects in how these vaginal mesh products.  Vaginal mesh complications can be severe and life-altering, affecting patients’ physical and emotional well-being. Some common complications associated with vaginal mesh implants include:

1. Mesh erosion: The mesh can erode through the vaginal tissue or other surrounding organs, causing pain and discomfort, often requiring additional surgeries to repair or remove the mesh
2. Pain: A critical element of damages in these lawsuits is the chronic pain, usually in the pelvic region, that women have during intercourse or even while sitting or walking
3. Infection: Mesh implants can lead to infections, which may require antibiotic treatment or even surgery to remove the infected mesh
4. Organ perforation: In some cases, the mesh may puncture nearby organs, such as the bladder, bowel, or blood vessels, requiring immediate medical attention and possibly additional surgeries
5. Urinary problems: Women may develop urinary incontinence, retention, or recurrent urinary tract infections due to the mesh implant
6. Vaginal scarring or shrinkage: The mesh can cause scarring or shrinkage of the vaginal tissue, leading to discomfort or pain, particularly during sexual intercourse
7. Recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI): In some instances, the original condition for which the mesh was implanted may recur, necessitating further treatment or surgery
8. Emotional and psychological distress: Dealing with the physical complications of a vaginal mesh implant can lead to pain and suffering, and juries have to compensate victims for that emotional and psychological distress

FDA Warnings and Public Awareness

In response to the growing number of reports about transvaginal mesh complications, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification in 2008, warning healthcare providers and patients about the potential risks associated with TVM devices. The notification highlighted complications such as erosion, pain, infection, and organ perforation, and urged manufacturers to provide more comprehensive information about these risks in product labeling.

In 2011, the FDA released an updated safety communication, significantly raising the alarm by stating that serious complications associated with TVM products for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair were not rare. The FDA emphasized that there was no clear evidence to prove that TVM was more effective than non-mesh methods for treating POP.

This announcement, coupled with the media coverage it received, brought widespread public attention to the potential dangers of TVM devices. The FDA also noted that mesh contraction (shrinkage), which could lead to severe pain and other complications, was a newly identified risk associated with TVM. These updates spurred further scrutiny and debate over the safety and efficacy of TVM products, leading to increased awareness and calls for stricter regulatory oversight.

Continuing the regulatory response, in 2012, the FDA ordered TVM manufacturers to conduct post-market surveillance studies to further investigate the safety and effectiveness of these products. This mandate required companies to gather more data on complications and outcomes, adding to the growing body of evidence regarding the risks associated with TVM.

By 2016, the FDA had reclassified TVM devices for POP repair from Class II (moderate risk) to Class III (high risk), reflecting the increased understanding of the serious health risks posed by these products. This reclassification required manufacturers to submit premarket approval (PMA) applications, providing detailed evidence of safety and effectiveness before these devices could be marketed.

In April 2019, the FDA took further action by ordering manufacturers to stop selling and distributing TVM products intended for POP repair. This decision came after the FDA concluded that the manufacturers had not demonstrated reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these devices. The agency’s determination was based on extensive review and consideration of adverse event reports, scientific literature, and public input.

Beginning of Vaginal Mesh Litigation

The first transvaginal mesh lawsuit was filed in 2009, marking the beginning of the vaginal mesh litigation. In the following years, thousands of lawsuits were filed against various TVM manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon), C.R. Bard, Boston Scientific, American Medical Systems (AMS), and Coloplast.

These lawsuits alleged that TVM manufacturers were negligent in their design, testing, and marketing of the devices and failed to warn healthcare providers and patients about the potential risks and complications associated with their use. The plaintiffs sought compensation for their physical and emotional suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages.

MDL Class Action and Bellwether Trials

Due to the growing number of vaginal mesh lawsuits, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated federal cases into several multidistrict litigations (MDLs) in 2012. Each MDL targeted a specific manufacturer, streamlining the pretrial process and allowing for more efficient handling of the cases.

Lawsuits involving vaginal mesh were consolidated into seven multidistrict litigations (MDLs) against C.R. Bard, Inc., American Medical Systems, Inc., Boston Scientific Corp., Ethicon, Inc., Coloplast Corp., Cook Medical, Inc., and Neomedic. This coordinated litigation expanded to encompass over 100,000 cases, making it one of the largest mass tort litigations in the history of the United States.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned these MDLs to U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia’s Charleston courthouse. At this point, only a tiny fraction of the original cases are still ongoing.  But new vaginal mesh lawsuits are still being filed in 2025.

Bellwether trials, which are test cases intended to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ arguments and potentially guide settlement negotiations, were held in several of these MDLs. Some of the notable bellwether trial verdicts included:

Vaginal Mesh Verdicts

Over the years, a handful of vaginal mesh lawsuits have gone to trial both in and out of the MDLs. The plaintiffs in these cases have consistently won significant verdicts from juries. Below is a list of the results of the major vaginal mesh trials.

If you average these cases, it is $27 million.  Is the average vaginal mesh settlement $27 million in 2025?  Of course not. But the point it that when these lawsuits hit, they can hit big and that has an impact on vaginal mesh settlement amounts.  At this point, these companies can hardly be surprised by big jury payouts.

You also have to notice that these claims have not gone to trial recently.  The defendants prefer quite out-of-court settlements and, as we mention in the 2025 updates above, you can reasonably expect to see more transvaginal mesh settlements in 2025.

Settlements and Continued Litigation

Many vaginal mesh manufacturers have negotiated global settlements to resolve large blocks of cases and avoid further litigation and the potential for large jury verdicts. Most of these global settlement deals occurred within the MDLs, resulting in small payouts for individual plaintiffs.

• In 2013, AMS agreed to settle around 20,000 lawsuits for a total of $1.6 billion
• In 2014, Coloplast settled approximately 400 lawsuits for $16 million
• In 2015, C.R. Bard settled more than 3,000 lawsuits for a total of $200 million
• In 2018, Boston Scientific settled around 50,000 lawsuits for a total of $189 million

Despite these settlements, thousands of vaginal mesh lawsuits remained pending against various manufacturers. In 2019, the JPML established a new MDL to handle the influx of new cases, consolidating them against multiple manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, C.R. Bard, and Boston Scientific.

FDA Actions and Regulatory Changes

The FDA has taken several significant steps to regulate transvaginal mesh (TVM) products in response to concerns about their safety and effectiveness:

Vaginal Mesh Litigation in 2025

The vaginal mesh litigation is ongoing, with thousands of lawsuits pending against various manufacturers. While many cases have been resolved through settlements, some manufacturers continue to litigate and defend their TVM products in court, and victims continue to file these transvaginal mesh lawsuits.

The FDA’s regulatory actions and the increased scrutiny of TVM devices have led to significant changes in the medical community’s approach to treating POP and SUI. Many healthcare providers now opt for non-mesh alternatives for POP repair and use TVM products more cautiously for SUI treatment.

Our lawyers are seeing a resurgence in vaginal mesh litigation in 2025. Why? Vaginal mesh attorney are realizing that instead of filing a class action lawsuit, these cases can be brough individually.  The trial value of these cases – the strongest cases that lawyers are looking for – is high enough to justify individual lawsuits in the right cases.  The thinking is the average vaginal mesh settlement or verdict will be much higher than if it was in an MDL.

What Are the Legal Allegations in a Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit in 2025?

Vaginal mesh lawsuits in 2025 continue to assert a variety of claims against manufacturers, holding them accountable for severe harm to patients. These claims include:

1. Negligence: Manufacturers failed to properly design, test, and manufacture the mesh, causing harm rather than relief from pelvic conditions like POP and stress urinary incontinence. Patients were led to believe the mesh was a safe, effective solution, but the lack of adequate testing and design scrutiny resulted in debilitating injuries. Many women suffered intense pain, organ damage, and further surgeries to remove the faulty mesh.
2. Strict Product Liability: The mesh was inherently defective, creating unreasonable risks even when used as intended. Under strict liability, plaintiffs only need to prove that the product was defective and caused their injury. In the case of vaginal mesh, the defect was in the very structure and composition of the product, which led to tissue erosion, infection, and organ perforation in numerous patients. Companies must be held accountable for releasing this dangerous product into the market, despite knowing its inherent risks.
3. Breach of Express Warranty: The manufacturers promised that the mesh was safe and effective for treating pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence in their advertising and product packaging. These promises formed the basis of patients’ trust in the product, which was tragically misplaced. When these explicit warranties were broken, patients were left to suffer physically and emotionally from the complications, making the breach of these guarantees one of the core issues in these cases.
4. Breach of Implied Warranty: Without explicit promises, the product should have been fit for its intended use. However, the mesh failed to meet even the basic expectations of quality and safety, causing harm instead of relief. Patients relied on the implied assurance that the mesh would work properly and safely in their bodies, but they were met with disastrous results, from chronic pain to permanent damage.
5. Misrepresentation: Companies made misleading claims about the mesh’s safety and efficacy. Women trusted the manufacturers’ narrative, which downplayed the risks and exaggerated the benefits. They were led to believe that the mesh was a reliable solution, but these misrepresentations masked the truth of its defects, leading to devastating outcomes.
6. Deceptive Trade Practices: The manufacturers engaged in deceptive marketing, providing false assurances and hiding known risks. They created an illusion of compliance with safety standards and sold a product that failed to meet the expectations set by consumers and medical professionals alike. This deliberate deceit resulted in thousands of women being unknowingly subjected to harmful procedures with defective products.
7. Failure to Warn: Even if the mesh had been properly designed, the companies did not provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers. Patients were not sufficiently informed of the risks, such as erosion and organ perforation, that accompanied the use of the mesh. This lack of warning resulted in women undergoing surgery without being fully aware of the dangers involved, which would have influenced their decisions.
8. Fraudulent Concealment: Manufacturers intentionally withheld critical information about their product’s dangers, deceiving doctors and patients. By hiding the known risks, the companies prevented patients from making informed decisions about their healthcare. This fraudulent concealment was not just a failure to disclose, but a deliberate strategy to protect profits at the expense of patient safety.

These claims represent the wide-ranging legal challenges that vaginal mesh manufacturers face in 2025, with thousands of women seeking compensation for their suffering and irreversible damage. The lawsuits highlight the critical need for accountability in the medical device industry, particularly when companies prioritize profit over patient well-being.

Current Status of Vaginal Mesh Class Action Lawsuits

In the early days of the litigation, the transvaginal mesh lawsuits pending in federal courts were consolidated into seven separate class action MDLs. Each MDL involved claims against a specific vaginal mesh manufacturer: (1) C.R. Bard, (2) Boston Scientific Corp., (3) American Medical Systems, (4) Ethicon, (5) Coloplast, (6) Cook Medical, and (7) Neomedic. At their peak, there were around 100,000 plaintiffs with cases pending in these 7 class action MDLs. The chart below shows the number of plaintiffs in the four biggest transvaginal mesh class actions:

As of 2025, over 95% of the cases pending in these vaginal mesh class action MDLs have been resolved through settlement and are no longer pending. Billions in settlement compensation have been paid out to victims. Vaginal mesh lawsuits continue to get filed as these mesh implants injure new women, but these new cases are not being handled in the class action MDLs.

Who is Eligible to File a Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuit in 2025?

Even though most of the cases in the vaginal mesh class action lawsuits have been settled, it is not too late to file a vaginal mesh lawsuit. In 2025, large numbers of vaginal mesh product liability lawsuits continued to get filed in courts across the country in federal and state courts. The current vaginal mesh plaintiffs primarily include women who had a transvaginal mesh implanted and suffered complications or injuries directly related to the implant within the last few years.

One of the primary concerns for prospective vaginal mesh plaintiffs looking to file a lawsuit in 2025 is whether the applicable statute of limitations has expired on their claim. Each state has its own statute of limitations for personal injury cases, but in most states, the statute of limitations is two or three years.

Whatever the applicable statute of limitation period is in your state, it doesn’t begin to run until your vaginal mesh injury or complication first occurs. As long as the first occurrence of your vaginal mesh complications occurred within the last 1 or 2 years, you will probably not have to worry about the statute of limitations.

Can You Join a Vaginal Mesh Class Action?

The vaginal mesh class action MDLs have mostly been settled and are now closed to new cases. However, if you were injured by complications related to a vaginal mesh or pelvic mesh, you can still file a product liability lawsuit against the implant manufacturer. Your lawsuit will not be consolidated into a class action MDL. Instead, your case would just proceed on its own against the defendant.

Who Is Eligible for a Vaginal Mesh Settlement?

Eligibility for a vaginal mesh settlement typically involves having suffered injuries due to a vaginal mesh implant and receiving treatment – typically surgery – for these complications. n These products were made with varying degrees of awfulness, so your vaginal mesh lawyer must dig out the manufacturer of your implant.

There is no question the statute of limitations for a vaginal mesh lawsuit can also come into play. Indeed, some women are otherwise eligible for a vaginal mesh settlement but cannot bring a claim because of the statute of limitations.  Some women will not bring a claim because they incorrectly assume they do not have a claim because the deadline passed, but it has not. Talking about your case with a lawyer is free and can clarify available legal options, even if you think the time limit has passed.

What specifically is our law firm looking at when we evaluate a potential transvaginal mesh lawsuit?  Four things:

1. Statute of Limitations: Our lawyers consider the potential client’s understanding of when they realized the mesh was causing issues. This can coincide with the date of a revision or repair, but sometimes the client was aware of problems well before any surgical intervention.
2. Statute of Repose: This is determined based on the date the mesh was implanted.  The statute of repose sets a deadline for filing a lawsuit based on the date of the original surgical implant, regardless of when the injury is discovered. Like the statute of limitations, the statute of repose varies state by state.
3. Manufacturers: Our law firm only accepts cases involving
   • Johnson & Johnson/Ethicon
   • Coloplast
   • Boston Scientific.
4. Need for Revision or Repair: We take cases where the client has or has been told to get a revision or repair of the transvaginal mesh.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits Against Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific offers a range of vaginal mesh products for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders and stress urinary incontinence. Here are some of the key products they sell or have sold:

1. Advantage Transvaginal Mid-Urethral Sling System – Designed with mesh tensioning and delivery in mind, includes a centering tab to assist with alignment and tensioning.
2. Advantage Fit Transvaginal Mid-Urethral Sling System – Features a thinner needle and tighter curve for reduced insertion force and closer delivery to the pubic bone.
3. Lynx™ Suprapubic Mid-Urethral Sling System – Facilitates suprapubic device passage with a smooth transition from loop to mesh.
4. Obtryx II Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System with PrecisionBlue Design – Offers smooth sling placement, intra-operative adjustability, and increased physician visualization.
5. Upsylon Y-Mesh and Colpassist™ Vaginal Positioning Device – Combines low density and high durability to facilitate mesh positioning and placement while providing support for anatomical defects.
6. Capio SLIM Suture Capturing Device – Features a small profile and suture dart carrier designed for minimal space usage in the surgical field.

One of the big claims in the transvaginal mesh litigation against Boston Scientific is that the polypropylene used in these slings is unsuitable for permanent transvaginal implantation due to degradation, chronic inflammation, and mechanical mismatch with native tissues, leading to pain and nerve irritation. Experts have offered the opinion that these slings should not be placed in the vagina, a surgically contaminated field, as bacterial contamination can cause chronic inflammation and similar complications.

Another problem is that the de-tanged portion. let’s take the Obtryx mesh, for example, increases risks of complications compared to non-detached mesh. The transvaginal sling’s blind implantation can cause acute and chronic injuries to nerves and muscles in the groin, resulting in conditions like obturator and pudendal neuralgia. The mechanical mismatch of the mesh can cause delayed nerve injuries, leading to life-altering pain syndromes.

In many of these lawsuits, plaintiffs are safer alternative designs existed, such as the use of sutures in a colposuspension procedure, autologous fascia sling, an allograft sling, or a sling with less polypropylene.

Boston Scientific vaginal mesh lawsuits allege the company did not adequately warn about risks in the Directions for Use (DFU), including chronic pain, neuralgia, and the need for multiple surgeries.

Contact Us About a Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit

Our lawyers are currently accepting new vaginal mesh lawsuits from women who suffered complications and injuries related to a vaginal, transvaginal, or pelvic mesh implant. Contact us at 800-553-8082 for a free consultation, or contact us online.