Covidien Parietex Hernia Mesh Complications Resulted In Revision Surgery, Lawsuit Claims
According to allegations raised in a recently filed product liability lawsuit, a California man suffered painful and debilitating complications from Covidien Parietex hernia mesh, indicating that the widely used product was defective and resulted in the need for additional revision surgery a few years later.
The complaint (PDF) was filed by Gary Northrup in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 16, naming Medtronic, Inc. and it’s Covidien subsidiary as defendants.
Northrup indicates that he underwent laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in September 2013. At that time, he was implanted with a piece of Parietex Composite Mesh, as well Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical mesh, which was manufactured and sold by Covidien before the company was acquired by Medtronic in January 2015.
Learn More About Hernia Mesh lawsuits
Cases reviewed for problems with several types of hernia repair products.
Following the hernia surgery, Northrup began suffering severe abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation and other complications from the hernia mesh, the lawsuit states. As a result, he required several visits to the Emergency Room, doctors visits and had to take a number of narcotics.
Northrup underwent a string of abdominal local anesthetic injections to ease the pain, and required additional surgery in January 2018, to remove sutures and subcostal tacks that were suspected to be causing his problems. However, his doctor ultimately recommended he have the hernia mesh pieces removed, and Northrup underwent revision surgery in March 2018.
Even after the Covidien Parietex hernia mesh products were removed, Northrup states that he continues to suffer severe pain.
When his doctor removed the mesh products, dense adhesions were found, and the lawsuit indicates that Parietex mesh was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous, since it was prone to fail and result in complications.
“The composition of polyester in the Parietex Composite Mesh is weak. It tears easily during handling and is known to unravel causing the polyester fiber to detach and travel to other parts of the body inciting an inflammatory response. Parietex Composite Mesh further contracts over time causing tension to increase where secured by tacks and sutures resulting in tearing,” the lawsuit states. “Contrary to the representations of Defendants, Parietex Composite Mesh has a high rate of failure, injury, and complication; fails to perform as intended; and causes severe and irreversible injuries like those suffered by Plaintiff.”
The complaint indicates that the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings about risks associated with their product, which were defectively designed and manufactured.
The case joins a growing hernia mesh litigation being pursued against multiple manufacturers, each involving similar problems with the designs of products that have been widely used by surgeons throughout the U.S. over the past decade.
In addition to other Covidien Parietex mesh lawsuits, there are also a number of Bard hernia mesh lawsuits, Atrium C-Qur lawsuits and Ethicon Physiomesh lawsuits pending nationwide, leading to the federal court system to establish three separate centralized pre-trial proceedings for litigation involving those products. However, there is not currently a consolidated proceeding for the Covidien mesh lawsuits.
JohnOctober 6, 2019 at 9:54 pm
I had covidien pariatex composite mesh for laproscopic ventral hernia repair and have had many trips to ER and infections can't eat lost 50 lbs nauseau severe abdominal pain recurrent hernia and can't get a straight answer. HELP please.
"*" indicates required fields
More Top Stories
An Exactech Logic knee lawsuit filed by a New York woman indicates her tibial insert failed, only to be replaced with another defective insert that was later recalled.
A uterine cancer lawsuit filed against L'Oreal claims years of exposure its hair straightener chemicals led to the cancer diagnosis.
A group of plaintiffs have asked a federal judge to lift a stay on more than a dozen wave 1 cases, which they say are not affected by 3M's liability arguments.