Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 28, 2026
Engineering 3D Cellularized Collagen Gels for Vascular Tissue Regeneration
Published on: June 16, 2015
Medicolegal basics and update on transvaginal mesh in Canada
Brock Hengel1, Blayne Welk2, Richard J Baverstock3
1Juris Doctor candidate, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law-Common Law Section, Ottawa, ON; Canada.
Abstract:
In recent years, midurethral slings (MUS) and transvaginal mesh procedures have experienced blazing growth and popularity. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada regulatory advisories threw water on that fire and created a confusing environment surrounding their continued usage. MUS usage has continued in Canada and transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse have become a rarity. Several large organizations (the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction [SUFU], the American Urogynecologic Society [AUGS], and the Canadian Urological Association [CUA]) have developed "mesh statements" to clarify the issues surrounding mesh for patients and medical professionals; however, often the legal system sees things differently in either individual cases or class action lawsuits. In this update, some medicolegal basics are outlined and Canadian context on legal proceedings are highlighted. This summary does not constitute legal advice and physicians should contact experts in legal matters for help with consents, complaints, litigation, or questions.
Insights
Midurethral slings (MUS) and transvaginal mesh procedures face regulatory scrutiny, impacting their use. This update reviews medicolegal aspects and Canadian legal proceedings concerning these surgical mesh devices.
Area of Science:
- Urogynecology
- Medical Device Regulation
- Medico-legal Science
Background:
- Midurethral slings (MUS) and transvaginal mesh procedures saw rapid adoption but faced regulatory advisories from the US FDA and Health Canada.
- These advisories created confusion regarding the continued use of these surgical mesh devices.
- While MUS use persists in Canada, transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse are now uncommon.
Purpose of the Study:
- To provide an update on the medicolegal landscape surrounding midurethral slings and transvaginal mesh.
- To outline medicolegal basics relevant to these procedures.
- To highlight the Canadian context of legal proceedings related to surgical mesh.
Main Methods:
- Review of regulatory advisories from the US FDA and Health Canada.
- Analysis of organizational statements (SUFU, AUGS, CUA) on mesh usage.
- Examination of medicolegal principles and Canadian legal proceedings.
Main Results:
- Regulatory actions have significantly impacted the use of transvaginal mesh, making it rare in Canada.
- Professional organizations have issued statements to clarify mesh issues for patients and professionals.
- Discrepancies exist between medical perspectives and legal system interpretations in mesh-related cases.
Conclusions:
- Physicians require expert legal guidance for issues concerning patient consent, complaints, and litigation related to surgical mesh.
- Understanding the medicolegal framework is crucial for healthcare providers using or considering mesh procedures.
- Navigating the legal complexities surrounding surgical mesh requires awareness of both medical guidelines and legal precedents.
