Plaintiffs Donna and Gary D. are the latest plaintiffs in a pelvic mesh lawsuit alleging that Boston Scientific Corporation is responsible for defects and dangerous aspects of its pelvic mesh product.

The couple alleges that in 2004, Donna was implanted with Boston Scientific’s Advantage mesh product. The purpose of this implantation was to address pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, say the plaintiffs.

However, the plaintiff in the pelvic mesh lawsuit says that she sustained serious side effects about which she was never warned, including infections, pain, urinary problems, and dyspareunia.

The pelvic mesh lawsuit says that these injuries would not have occurred if the plaintiff had been given appropriate information about the dangerous aspects of the product.

The pelvic mesh lawsuit explains that the medical device involved in the claim is targeted at women who suffer from discomfort, pain and stress urinary incontinence due to the damage or the weakening of the walls of the vagina. The pelvic mesh lawsuit alleges that the device is made up of a monofilament polypropylene mesh intended for stress urinary incontinence treatment.

Emerging scientific evidence, contends the pelvic mesh lawsuit, appears to indicate that this material may be biologically incompatible with human tissue, causing an immune system response that is painful and problematic for the patient. The pelvic mesh lawsuit says that the immune system response of the body encourages the pelvic tissue to degrade and can ultimately cause severe adverse reactions to the mesh.

The plaintiffs say that the Boston Scientific, the mesh maker, is responsible for falsely marketing their medical devices as reliable, safe and effective, despite the fact that they come with significant side effects, such as complication, injury and high failure rates.

The pelvic mesh lawsuit says that the company was aware that these devices frequently fail to perform as intended or marketed, requiring debilitating operations, irreversible injuries, damages to numerous women and complicated medical conditions.

Donna and Gary say that the defendant provided incomplete information about the injuries and side effects that the patient could experience, which include blood loss, mesh contraction, mesh erosion, perforation of organs, inflammation, chronic nerve damage and pain, and more.

Many of the side effects, according to the pelvic mesh lawsuit, have been reported in medical journals and studies.

Most women who go through the pelvic mesh procedure are often diagnosed with pelvic organ prolapse. That condition happens when the muscles holding a woman’s pelvic organs are weakened, causing the bladder to drop against the vagina walls.

The other condition for which the pelvic mesh procedure is recommended is stress urinary incontinence. Sneezing or coughing for a woman with SUI can cause leakage of urine. The use of surgical mesh for transvaginal repair was approved in 2002, but women who have received this product to treat their conditions have experienced more severe side effects and accuse the maker of failing to let them know about the risks.

The Pelvic Mesh Lawsuit is Case No. N18C-11-218PEL in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.