Hernia Mesh Removal Surgery May Be Too Dangerous, Lawsuit Alleges

  • Written by: Irvin Jackson

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Although a North Carolina man has suffered painful and debilitating complications after an Atrium C-Qur patch was implanted to repair an umbilical hernia, a product liability lawsuit filed recently against the manufacturer indicates that his doctors are reluctant to perform hernia mesh removal surgery, as it would be a very dangerous procedure.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Elbern H. Perrine in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, indicating that Atrium Medical Corporation, Maquet Cardiovascular US Sales, LLC, and Getinge AB sold a defectively designed and manufactured hernia patch, which was not safe for use during hernia repair, posed unreasonable risks that outweighed any potential benefits associated with the unique design.

Perrine had an 8.9cm x 8.9cm patch of Atrium C-Qur mesh implanted in his body in May 2010, during an umbilical hernia repair. By July 2012, the lawsuit indicates that he began to suffer abdominal pain, and was admitted to the hospital where it was discovered that he was suffering a partial bowel obstruction in the area of his prior hernia repair. Following an EGD and colonoscopy, Perrine was diagnosed with a hiatal hernia. In 2014, Perrine experienced further problems, resulting in additional surgery for multiple adhesions to the abdominal wall.

The lawsuit indicates that his surgeons now advise that due to complications caused by Atrium C-Qur, the hernia mesh needs to be removed. However, his current surgeon is reluctant to perform any additional surgical procedures as a result of the serious nature of the problems Perrine has suffered. As a result, he has been left with daily chronic pain, and indicates that he will require ongoing future treatments.

“As a result of the defective design and/or manufacture of the C-Qur mesh, there was an unreasonable risk of severe adverse reactions to the mesh or mesh components including: chronic pain; recurrence of hernia; foreign body response; rejection; infection; inadequate or failure of incorporation/in growth; scarification; improper wound healing; excessive and chronic inflammation; allergic reaction; adhesions to internal organs; erosion; abscess; fistula formation; granulomatous response; seroma formation; nerve damage; tissue damage and/or death; and other complications, including the inability to remove the C-Qur mesh absent serious injury or death,” according to the complaint.

The case joins a growing number of Atrium C-Qur mesh lawsuits filed in courts throughout the U.S., each raising similar claims that Atrium knew or should have known about the risk of problems associated with the hernia patch and large number of adverse events reported. However, the manufacturer has not issued any warnings or any official Atrium C-Qur recalls, instead choosing to withhold information from consumers and quietly remove certain products from the market.

Given the similar questions of fact and law raised in dozens of cases filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided to consolidate all lawsuits filed against Atrium last month, centralizing claims before U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty in the District of New Hampshire, for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Perrine’s complaint and additional Atrium C-Qur cases filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide will be transferred to Judge McCafferty, for coordinated handling during discovery and a series of early “bellwether” trials in the MDL, which are designed to gauge how juries are likely to respond to certain evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. However, if Atrium C-Qur hernia mesh settlements or another resolution is not reached following the MDL proceedings, each individual case may be remanded back to the U.S. District Court where it was originally filed for a separate trial date.

Tags: , , ,


  1. jane Reply

    i had surgery & on my surgical permit i wrote do not want any meshto be used in my surgery but mesh was used & i developed an infection MRSA complications beause of my disabled mental capacity i was out of it nearly died 3 times stayed in hospital 311 days over 3 year period didn’t eat for over 3 years still have problems to this day when i eat

  2. Charles Reply

    I had the mesh put in me for a double herina and am doing great

  3. Nancy Reply

    On March 5, 2010 I had surgery to deal with a hiatal hernia. It evidently was near the sphinter muscle which was closing off while I was trying to eat, and was causing me to vomit because food would go all the way down. My primary care doctor sent me to a gastrointestinal surgeon who advised I needed the surgery. Following the surgery I knew it was impossible to throw up. However, I couldnt even get sips of water to stay down. Following the next three months I spent roughly 30 days in and out of the hospital. I finally told the hospital I wasn’t going back home until they could figure out what was wrong. I had a different surgeon come in to see me. He said that there was something wrong with the mesh that had been used previously. I ended up having a second surgery and that doctor did not use mesh. On rare occasions, I still deal with some reflux, and as long as it stays above the sphinter muscle I can bring it back up. Both surgeries was called Nissan fundoplication.

  4. Jaime Reply

    I’m facing having mesh removed from a previous belly button hernia surgery and I’m scared. Anyone had this done?

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.