According to the study findings, within six months of implantation, 20% of the Physiomesh patients suffered a hernia recurrence, compared to 0% of patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh.
In March 2016, the journal Surgical Endoscopy published research comparing the outcomes of 25 patients implanted with Ethicon’s Physiomesh hernia mesh device and 25 patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh by C.R. Now, hernia mesh attorneys are investigating claims brought by individuals across the country who believe they have been harmed by side effects of hernia mesh.Ī number of studies published in recent years have highlighted the potential side effects of hernia mesh, one of the earliest being a study published in 2009, which examined the “problem of mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.” According to the researchers, “The surgeon has to anticipate the significant mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic hernia mesh repair.” Another hernia mesh study was published in the journal Surgical Infections in August 2012, and found that the polypropylene plastic used in many hernia mesh products is “characterized by high tensile strength and vigorous tissue ingrowth, but is unsuitable for intra-abdominal placement because of its tendency to induce bowel adhesions.” In April 2016, the FDA published an article highlighting the potential risks associated with hernia mesh, indicating that the devices may cause problems like “pain, infection, recurrence, adhesion, obstruction and perforation.” The following month, Ethicon removed its Physiomesh hernia mesh device from the market, citing the results of two large studies in Denmark and Germany, which found higher rates of hernia recurrence and revision surgery associated with Physiomesh, compared to similar hernia patches. Unfortunately, many of these hernia mesh products have since been found to increase the risk of debilitating complications, yet the FDA continues to allow new hernia mesh devices on the market. The concept of using mesh for the surgical repair of hernias was introduced more than 50 years ago, and in the years since, dozens of hernia mesh products have been approved by the FDA, many of which were cleared by the agency based solely on their similarity to other hernia mesh devices already on the market. In September 2016, a woman from Florida filed a Physiomesh lawsuit against Ethicon, alleging that the hernia mesh device blocked her intestines and became embedded in her abdominal wall, causing her chronic pain and other injuries. More recently, a lawsuit filed in April 2016 by a man from Illinois, included allegations that side effects of his Physiomesh device caused him to suffer an infection, two abscesses and an intestinal fistula. Bard agreed to pay $184 million to settle more than 3,000 lawsuits alleging complications from its hernia mesh products. Bard, broke inside his body, causing serious internal injuries. In 2010, for example, plaintiff Christopher Thorpe was awarded $1.5 million in the second Kugel hernia mesh bellwether case to go to trial, after his mesh device, manufactured by C.R. Bard and other mesh manufacturers, alleging that the companies failed to adequately warn about the potential risks associated with their products. As more information comes to light about the potential for hernia mesh devices to cause devastating side effects in patients, more and more hernia mesh recipients are pursuing legal claims against Ethicon, C.R.