The Future of Mesh Sales is Rosy Says Market Research Group

Apr 26th, 2012 | By | Category: Media Reports

April 24, 2012 ~ Even though the number of lawsuits against synthetic mesh manufacturers is growing by the day, surgical mesh products are expected to surge in sales in 2012, according to the Millennium Research Group (MRG). The group interviewed 181 U.S. surgeons (gynecologists, urologists and urogynecologists) in November and December of last year. Among them 130 used synthetic mesh in their practice and 51 used no mesh.

Millennium reports the market for mesh will grow by two percent for pelvic floor repair (transvaginal mesh) and for sacral colpopexy/hysteropexy procedures.

MRG generally delivery a pretty rosy picture about medical devices in general. Is the research group delivering the news that the intended audience would like to hear? (see their website)

Synthetic mesh is used to hold up descending organs in women (pelvic organ prolapse, POP) and to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI). It is still being used by the medical establishment despite the many complications and despite two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings. The second FDA Safety Notification issued in July 2011 (here) said complications associated with surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP are not rare, a change from the October 2008 notification.

Complications can lead to the mesh eroding and migrating injuring other organs, infection, nerve injuries, hemorrhage, urethral obstruction, extrusion, vaginal scarring and shrinkage as well as emotion problems among other complications. Multiple corrective surgeries are often required.

And the FDA suggested “that in most cases, POP can be treated successfully without mesh thus avoiding the risk of mesh-related complications.”

In January 2012, the FDA said it is considering a recommendation that urogynecologic surgical mesh used for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) be reclassified as high risk.

Despite the dire reports, Drugwatch (here) quotes MRG analyst Sohaib Perwaiz who said, “Despite the recent controversy, and the fact that a large portion of physicians have reported increased patient concern about the safety and efficacy of urogynecologic transvaginal mesh and related procedures, many survey respondents [physicians] find that surgical mesh products have distinct benefits in treating pelvic organ prolapse  (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).”

Here is the report which was released in December 2011. #

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments to “The Future of Mesh Sales is Rosy Says Market Research Group”

  1. Teresa says:

    Ya know….I love a growing family..but NOT a growing Meshie family. Soo this is the numbers I see..in 2011 a “reported” 300,000 were implanted, that will give 2012′s 2% increase, a rough number of 306,000 of implantations..now according to the “data” provided by the FDA I believe 15% of women have adverse effects..that makes a growth of the meshie family, using 15% to: 45,900.
    this is unacceptable! We need to make the changes quick!

  2. InAz says:

    I think 15% is a conservative, I’m sure there many women who don’t even know the mesh is causing their health problems, since their “trusted” doctors told them it’s not the mesh. Which means they will not be reporting any adverse effects. Plus, elderly who need someone else to be their advocate but no one will or don’t know to speak on their belief. It just makes me sick, while we suffer there are people who get to live a lavish lifestyle at our life’s expense. This madness has to end!

  3. Amy G says:

    Our complications are grossly marginalized and dismissed by the very surgeons who are profiting from these surgeries.

Leave a Comment

We hope you find this a helpful resource. National News Editor, Jane Akre, began MDND with the hope of providing the latest news, information and perspective from the regulatory, industry and patient point of view, something that goes under-reported in much of the coverage of medical devices. The public is just now becoming aware that many devices do not undergo the same scrutiny as prescription drugs and are instead grandfathered in under an FDA loophole that has gone largely unchanged since the 1970s. As a result, patients become the post-market clinical trial subjects, and many suffer devastating and permanent injuries.