It was recently announced that the Australian government has apologized to women harmed by implanting vaginal mesh. More and more governments are showing criticism of these products. In Scotland, the use of mesh was recently restricted to exceptional cases.
It is right for doctors, manufacturers and governments to take responsibility for what has happened to many women. For years, surgeries have been performed on women to remedy symptoms caused by prolapse. Initially, these were so-called classic surgeries in which no mesh was used. At some point, gynecologists switched to the use of mesh, thinking that the surgical results would be more long-lasting and no follow-up surgeries would be necessary.
Mesh is a pelvic floor mat (in many cases with several long arms for suspension) made of polypropylene. This makes it a foreign body product inserted into the pelvic floor during these surgeries.
One of the most serious problems is that the mat sets up inflammatory reactions, causes a defect in the vaginal wall and gets through it. An ingrown mat cannot be surgically removed completely, if at all. The damage remains.
Back in October 2008, the U.S. FDA warned of problems with transvaginal placement of pelvic floor mesh. Scientific publications also warned that polypropylene in the vagina could trigger adverse body reactions and that the long-term effects of mesh placement were unknown.
Publications on the requirements for foreign-body implants have appeared since the 1950s. The main rule is that they should be inert, meaning that they do not react in a problematic way with the surrounding body tissue.
In 2013, the Health Care Inspectorate wrote a report entitled Serious complications require cautious use of transvaginal mesh. That report exposed, among other things, that the gynecological profession has too quickly embraced the use of mesh in violation of its own professional rules. The report also revealed that the manufacturers had not commissioned any or sufficient clinical research for this application in the pelvic floor.
A medical profession that does not choose with sufficient care a technique that carries risks. A manufacturer who places the product on the market without sufficient clinical research for this application, and in some cases had already been warned by the propylene manufacturer of the risks of implantation. The women who have been harmed by this are suffering. Their symptoms are terrible and deeply interfere with their lives and those of their life partner.
And where is the government? In the broadcast of TROS Radar it was demonstrated that under the current rules it is possible to get a CE mark for a tangerine net. When will the Dutch government make excuses to women?