Through urogynologic procedures, there are thousands of women who have received surgical mesh.  The procedure was intended to remedy pelvic organ prolapse or to fix urinary incontinence.  However, serious risks are linked to transvaginal surgical mesh as per data revealed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Nonetheless, there are other known alternatives deemed less risky. Between January 1, 2008 until December 31, 2010, the FDA has been in receipt of more than 2,800 reports of complications with transvaginal mesh surgeries.  The three years report includes 1,503 adverse effects of surgical mesh utilized for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse.  Also included are 2,371 reports of adverse effects of transvaginal mesh used as remedy for stress urinary incontinence.  In this three-year period, there have been seven deaths blamed on the device used for pelvic organ prolapse. And as records of injuries mount, so does the number of lawsuit filed against makers of transvaginal mesh.

Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Complications and Adverse Reactions

According to some personal injury law firms, anyone who suffered the complications brought by a transvaginal mesh surgery may be entitled to compensation. Complications may be varied and includes urinary incontinence, urinary tract obstruction or difficulty urinating, pain during intercourse, inflammation, irritation or infection, among others.  When one lodges a case in court due to claims involving a vaginal mesh, damages obtained may include past and future medical treatment expenses, not to mention repair surgeries, lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering, and other related damages.  Because of the nature of this personal injury case, law firms, such as Rottenstein Law Group of New York, have put up online transvaginal mesh lawsuit centers, such as rotlaw.com, to reach out to victims and their families.

How many surgical mesh brands are out there?

A transvaginal mesh is utilized for the repair of tears in the connective tissue of the pelvis.  The condition causes internal organs such as the intestines, bladder or bowel to move into the vagina. Vaginal mesh, transvaginal tape, and transvaginal slings are just some of the forms of this remedy that are used to fasten the connective tissues together in the vaginal wall muscle back to their proper places.  Below are the brands of surgical mesh:

   American Medical Systems (AMS)
   Avaulta
   Bard
   Boston Scientfic
   Tyco
   Johnson & Johnson
   Sofradim
   Mentor
   Gynecare
   Uretex.

Fresenius Faces Another Lawsuit Involving GranuFlo

Facing another lawsuit due to its scandal-ridden product, Fresenius has to deal with a GranuFlo lawsuit an affected patient has lodged in court.  The plaintiff alleged to have been harmed by alkali dosing errors associated with GranuFlo. For pre-trial proceedings, a court has consolidated Fresenius lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation.

The lawsuit was lodged in court by, Ronnie Glasper.  He was prescribed Fresenius’s Naturalyte and/or GranuFlo in his dialysis treatments in a Louisiana Fresenius Medical Care center. Consequently, he suffered a heart attack and stroke.

The plaintiff in this lawsuit accuses Fresenius for allegedly hiding what it knows about the dangers that patients could suffer from Naturalyte GranuFlo (or Naturalyte).  The plaintiff also alleges in his lawsuit that Fresenius was negligent, with intent to defraud, with the product testing by saying that GranuFlo is safe.  Furthermore, the plaintiff questions the company as to whether proper testing has been conducted on the product in order to establish the risks associated with Naturalyte or GranuFlo.

On November 4, 2011, Ronnie Glasper’s claims relate, Fresenius issued an internal memo and sent it to Fresenius medical directors and physicians.  It was to warn on the health dangers a patient could be exposed to in using Naturalyte and GranuFlo.  However, this warning was not shared to the FDA.  Nonetheless, the risks linked to Naturalyte and GranuFlo were known in a case-control study involving patients of hemodialysis. It was noted in the memo, according to the plaintiff’s allegation, that the study revealed a tendency for an increased pre-dialysis bicarbonate levels to occur and also the risk of apparent alkalosis resulting with about six to eight times greater chance of fatal cardiac arrest.

Unfortunately, the problem with the memo, according to the plaintiff, is that Fresenius failed to send the memo to the facility where he received treatment, nor did his physician received it, though it was sent to some of other medical facilities. In some other reports, there were patients who suffered from the effects of high blood serum bicarbonate levels.  The condition can be fatal and may also result in cardiac arrhythmias, cardiopulmonary arrest, stroke and other serious health complications to those who received Naturalyte or GranuFlo.

Following the staggering court claims being filed against Fresenuis, personal injury law firms are starting to put up online legal centers catering to those who might want to lodge a lawsuit against the company over GranuFlo side effects.  Those who are alleging they were seriously harmed by the use of GranuFlo and Naturalyte may contact these law firms for free legal help, such as Rottenstein Law Group at www.rotlaw.com. There are now eleven federal lawsuits, as of this writing, reportedly consolidated to MDL 2428 in the US District Court, District of Massachusetts. The MDL is identified as In re: Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation.

DePuy Pinnacle Lawsuits 2,700 and Growing

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) seems unable to keep its hands off some trouble over its metal-on-metal hip implants. Just when one thinks the recalled ASR hip lawsuits are currently being settled, here come DePuy Pinnacle lawsuits piling up at a speed not unlike its recalled predecessor. Last month registered almost 2,700 Pinnacle cases filed in federal court.

Although a multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been set up to consolidate these DePuy lawsuits, the product itself is largely out in the market. First trial for the Pinnacle MDL is set by May 2014. On the market front, approximately 150,000 patients utilize the Pinnacle, heralded as the successor of the DePuy ASR hip implant.

DePuy Setting Billions of Dollars for Recalled Hip Implants

There were about 96,000 patients affected by the DePuy ASR recall in August of 2010, a recall largely attributed to above-normal implant revision rates of 17 to 19 percent. Thus far, two ASR lawsuits have reached settlement of $200,000 each. At this rate and with 3,000 pending ASR lawsuits, DePuy’s mother company J&J is reportedly setting aside $3 billion for settlements alone. The company is helping patients shoulder the cost of revision.

However, it seems this is not the case for the Pinnacle. Spokesperson for the Pinnacle defends the hip implant vigorously as a totally different product in comparison the recalled ASR hip. On the contrary, the company is not helping Pinnacle patients with revision surgery.

But How Is It Different Really?

Reports from Reuters stipulate that 10 percent or more of all Pinnacle hip implants is going to fail in the next two to three years. With a 10 percent failure rate, this could translate into 15,000 lawsuits over DePuy Pinnacle in the U.S. alone. Worse, the British Orthopaedic Association estimates that the Pinnacle will exhibit a 49 percent failure rate after six years.

Today with the advent of internet, getting a case started over the Pinnacle is but a matter of taking a legal review in trusted online sites like www.rotlaw.com. Also, many plaintiffs have relied in the expertise of experienced personal injury lawyers (e.g. New York-based RLG or Rottenstein Law Group) to move their cases forward.

Remember at the onset, these metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants were heralded as the sturdier devices designed for the younger, hipper, more active generation. Instead of lasting 15 years as predicted, they have acquired so bad a reputation surgeons are turning away from these MoM devices in general.

As a successor, the Pinnacle seems to be inheriting the same problems associated to the ASR hip: early revision rate, pain, swelling, limited mobility and dislocation. Then its complications also display the same culprit, metallosis or metal poisoning. Metallosis results from metal shavings or debris that gets deposited in the patient destroying bones and tissue and causing cardiovascular, neurological and renal problems.  In fact, one Mayo clinic orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary O’ Connor aptly observed that we may be seeing but just the “tip of the iceberg” with regards to metal-on-metal failures.

DePuy Hip Lawsuit: Analyzing the First Verdict

The plaintiff of the first DePuy hip lawsuit on trial, Loren “Bill” Kransky, was awarded by a California jury with $8.3 million in damages. This could be but the first of thousands more of similar verdicts against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for injuries due to a DePuy metal hip implant.

Jurors found negligence on the part of the manufacturer in the design of the ASR hip implant. Kransky’s award includes $8 million for mental suffering and physical pain and $338,136 for medical bills, according to Bloomberg.

Punitive Damages Sought by Kranky’s Lawyers

Also, Kranky’s attorneys had sought punitive damages up to $179 million. However, the jurors concluded that J&J was not remiss in warning consumers on the possible dangers associated with the hip implant and punitive damages were not awarded.

Other notable highlights in the decision include:

-        10,750. This is the number of DePuy hip lawsuits filed against J&J for similar problems over the recalled device. Kransky’s case is but the first of many lawsuits currently pending.

-        This times no punitives. Although unable to secure punitive damages, Kransky’s lawyers look forward to try again in their next cases. They argued that manufacturer J&J was aware of these complications associated with their hip implant but continued to profit from it. In fact, they allege that J&J explored having the implants replaced if only the price involved was not too high. To note, one juror indicated in the Kransky’s case that he’d chose to have punitive damages in view of the length of time that it took J&J to arrest the problem.

-        An appeal is still possible. Given the sheer number of lawsuits racked against it, J&J has expressed its desire to appeal the decision. The company maintains its product was not made defectively.

As for J&J, many view a bleak future for the company as fears that the lawsuit may cause the manufacturer to go bankrupt are rife. All this may depend on how the next cases will be resolved and whether by then punitive damages will be awarded. Roughly, the drug giant is worth $200 billion; it has about $1 billion allocated to cover as costs for these particular lawsuits, The Associated Press reports.

Considering Due Compensation for DePuy Hip Injuries

Serious injuries due to a DePuy hip implant could make one entitled to a just compensation via a DePuy hip lawsuit. Consulting an experienced personal injury lawyer could be a good start. Also, one’s lawsuit over DePuy hip maybe sped up through a legal assessment, given free online in trusted sites like www.rotlaw.com of New York-based RLG or The Rottenstein Law Group.

FDA ALARMED BY DA VINCI INCIDENTS, SURVEYS HOSPITALS

The Da Vinci surgical system has been under a barrage of pressure from all sides. On one end, a long list of adverse event reports are racked over it, followed by a burgeoning line of lawsuits against its manufacturer. Recently, the FDA is making rounds, sponsoring a survey to measure surgeon training and other complications related to the device in key medical centers and hospitals nationwide. Many conclude the future is bleak for this particular surgical care technology, Bloomberg reports.

A published March 1, 2013 article stipulates that the FDA is reaching out to various surgeons in top U.S. hospitals. The agency is gathering data from these health professionals on a list of criteria regarding Intuitive Surgical, Inc., maker of the Da Vinci surgical system.

The Da Vinci Surgical System Matters Looked Into

Although costing roughly $1.5 million each, the Da Vinci surgical system has been used in over 500,000 surgical procedures in 2012 alone. However, lawsuits against its manufacturer over the device have been climbing steadily.

Given the number of operations, doctors were then surveyed on what particular type of surgery they think the Da Vinci best and least fits. Also, the query wanted to know what kind of training these doctors have undergone to use the device.

Da Vinci Adverse Events Report Reach Alarming Numbers

Approved in 2000, the Da Vinci surgical system has been utilized to aid in gynecologic, urologic and laparoscopic surgery. The surgical robot has also been used to perform thyroid cancer procedures, gastric bypass surgery and gall bladder removal.

News of the survey was announced after Da Vinci adverse event reports swelled. In its report last January, hedge fund Citron Research detailed that roughly 4,600 reports of adverse events have been made because of the Da Vinci. FDA’s MAUDE database reveals that 3,900 of these reports were forwarded between the period of 2007 and 2012.

Da Vinci Lawsuits Claimed Serious Adverse Effects

Patients who have decided to file a Da Vinci surgical system lawsuit have done so because of the following adverse effects:

- excessive bleeding

- bowel Injuries
- cut ureters
- surgical tears/burns to arteries(other blood vessels)
- surgical tears/burns to vital organs
- death

The FDA is trying to get to the bottom of the matter. It wants to know if the long list of adverse reports is caused by the Da Vinci device itself or if there are other issues involved, according to an FDA spokeswoman, Bloomberg.com reported.

Considering Proper Compensation for Da Vinci Injuries

Getting injuries right from the surgical table is no joke. It is for this reason that seeking due compensation through a Da Vinci surgical system lawsuit could be a viable option.  An experienced personal injury lawyer should be able look into the merits of one’s case. Also, trusted sites, e.g.   www.rotlaw.com of RLG (Rottenstein Law Group), can give a free online legal review that could jumpstart one’s lawsuit over Da Vinci surgical system in no time at all.

Da Vinci Surgical System on Review

This is a very sophisticated machine no doubt. But allegedly, many of its results have been spectacularly disastrous.

The Da Vinci surgical system allows surgeons to operate from a distance through a control panel. By looking into a couple of stereo eyepieces and using foot pedals and hand controls, an operating surgeon is able to navigate the arm of the robot. This is possible since the robotic arm is equipped with cameras and surgical tools. The Da Vinci promises surgery that is less invasive, recovery time that is quicker and a motions benefit way beyond what a human hand can do.

All these benefits, however, have drawbacks. Many complications that are very serious and are possibly life-threatening have been attributed to the Da Vinci surgical system.  The device is said to be defective; the learning curve in operating the device is allegedly way too steep.

Da Vinci Allegedly Offers no Distinct Advantage

From the Da Vinci company website, the device is trumpeted as an alternative surgery that is minimally invasive for treating various health conditions. These conditions include: obesity, kidney disorders, heavy uterine bleeding, endometriosis, coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer among many other diseases.

However, over time, a lot of people began asking if real benefits over traditional surgery exist from the Da Vinci surgical system. For instance, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Kaiser Foundation have cast doubt on the system. Further, the Journal of Clinical Oncology January 2012 issue has stated that it seems using the device has no distinct advantage over traditional surgery. To note, a surgery via the robot costs $1,300.

Da Vinci is linked to Many Complications

Worse, many patients have not been warned adequately. They do not know that it takes some time before a surgeon becomes proficient in using the device. And that while the surgeon is learning the dangers of serious injuries that could be life-threatening abound. Some of these are:

-        Tears or punctures
-        More surgery
-        Surgical burns
-        Fatal complications

Getting Proper Compensation for Da Vinci Injuries

Individuals who have been experiencing problems due to the Da Vinci surgical system has an option of seeking financial relief through a Da Vinci surgical system lawsuit. Getting the merits of one’s case evaluated by an experienced personal injury lawyer is a good start. Those who suffer need not look very far to get their lawsuit over the Da Vinci surgical system moving. Sites such as www.rotlaw.com , a service-website of RLG (Rottenstein Law Group), offer legal evaluations online at no cost.

This is one powerful cutting device. Wielding it improperly could be deadly.