Might that testimony have swung the verdict in a different direction?
Transvaginal mesh has been used in recent years to treat conditions common to middle-age women having borne children: the sagging of internal organs, which can press upon the uterus. Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) are two conditions that are commonly treated with transvaginal mesh inserted laparoscopically through a small incision and deployed inside the abdomen by a surgeon guided by a small camera.
Such a TVT sling procedure has been favored in recent years over more traditional options such as invasive surgery to place TVT mesh or the use of a patient’s own tissue to shore up wayward organs. Healing time is reduced, freeing up hospital beds.
However, there have since been thousands of complaints with regard to transvaginal mesh complication. Cardenas claims she was injured by Obtryx transvaginal mesh manufactured by Boston Scientific. Transvaginal mesh has been known, in other patients, to migrate and become entangled with bowels and other organs, or protrude through the uterine wall, injuring both the woman and her sexual partner. Often, revision surgery is needed to alter the transvaginal mesh complication. However, such surgery is not possible in every case, leaving the woman to deal with a lifetime of chronic pain.
READ MORE TRANSVAGINAL MESH LEGAL NEWS
Had juries in this and a previous trial been allowed to consider such testimony in their deliberations, might they have come to a different conclusion? The jury in the Cardenas case found that the Obtryx transvaginal sling manufactured by Boston Scientific was not defective, and the company quite properly and adequately warned about the device.
Given the exclusion of the expert testimony by Cardenas’ surgeon, it provides certain grounds for an appeal of the transvaginal mesh lawsuit verdict. The case is Maria Cardenas v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case No. MICV2012-02912, in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex.