Surgical mesh has widely been used to treat conditions such as pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”) in women. However, thousands of women have suffered devastating consequences following the insertion of surgical mesh.
Surgical mesh is made from synthetic or biological materials used to provide additional support for weakened or damages tissue.
Common complications of gynaecological surgical mesh can include:
- Chronic pain
- Infections
- Organ perforation
- Mesh erosion (where the mesh cuts through vaginal tissue)
- Painful intercourse (dyspareunia)
- Urinary problems
These complications can lead to significant physical, emotional and financial burdens for affected women who often face further surgeries.
Legal grounds for surgical mesh claims:
- Defective Product Design: some surgical mesh products are poorly designed and there is an increased risk of erosion, organ damage and chronic pain.
- Failure to Warn: Manufacturers failed to adequately inform doctors and patients about the risks associated with mesh implants.
- Medical Negligence: improper placement of the mesh or failure to recognise / act upon complications promptly (or at all)
- Lack of Informed Consent: this is where the patient is not provided with sufficient (or any) information about alternative treatments or the risk of mesh implantation.
With no formal redress scheme in place, injured women have pursued litigation – either a medical negligence claim or a product liability case - but have faced lengthy waits and varying success rates.
Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” Review looked at not only the use of pelvic mesh in gynaecological surgery (for example, in the insertion of tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tapes to treat stress incontinence) but also the prescription of sodium valproate (an anti-epileptic drug) during pregnancy.
The Review provided a detailed assessment of the healthcare and regulatory failures in both cases and made a series of important recommendations for government and the healthcare system to prevent similar harm reoccurring.
The Hughes Report (published on 7 February 2025) is the vital “next step” following on from Baroness Cumberlege’s Review. The Hughes Report focuses on how to provide redress.
The Hughes Report highlights the importance of recognition and redress to meet the needs of those women affected, making specific recommendations for what a redress scheme may look like. That proposed scheme is built on the principles of restorative practice – putting right what has gone wrong.
A suitable redress scheme should involve a combination of non-financial and financial elements and should:
- be co-designed with patients harmed with pelvic mesh (and sodium valproate);
- be straightforward, accessible and non-adversarial;
- be administered by an independent body that commands the confidence of those needing to access it;
- provide harmed patients with a fixed interim sum of financial redress (“the interim scheme);
- offer more bespoke financial support to directly harmed patients based on their individual circumstances (“the main scheme”);
- provide harmed patients with access to non-financial redress;
- offer free emotional support to those affected; and
- be widely publicised to ensure all potentially eligible patients are aware of its existence.
The Hughes Report acknowledges that “redress” differs from the compensation that could be achieved as a result of a clinical negligence claim and acknowledges that a redress scheme will have it limitations – particularly in the sense that they may represent a “contribution towards the losses people have suffered.”
The ball is now in the government’s court to consider and digest the Hughes Report before deciding whether to opt to implement a redress scheme as recommended. For many this can’t come soon enough.
For further information regarding pelvic mesh, please also use the following links:
1. Vaginal mesh - NHS Resolution
2. Pelvic mesh victims still waiting for compensation a year on
3. Mesh and sodium valproate scandal victims need payouts soon, report says - BBC News
4. Thousands of women harmed by pelvic mesh deserve redress | Sling The Mesh
Hannah Carr, Legal Director and Specialist Medical Negligence Solicitor and Sharado Parbhoo from MDS welcome the recommendations set out in the Hughes Report.
MDS is a specialist medical negligence law firm. We specialise in claims involving cancer, maternity, and cauda equina syndrome. Our expert solicitors represent clients all around England and Wales, and we are dedicated to helping people who have been injured by medical negligence.
If you are concerned about any care that you or a member of your family has received, please contact our experienced team on 0116 254 7456 or email: enquiries@moosaduke.com. You can also enquire online by clicking here.
If you or someone you know has been affected, don't hesitate to seek legal support—justice and compensation may be within reach
