As the final article in a four-part series regarding a discussion among lawyers of Transvaginal mesh litigation issues, the issue of timing regarding a vaginal mesh lawsuit is examined. There are several potential issues related to timing in these lawsuits, including the fact that while physicians are not currently considered defendants in these suits, that could possibly change for any doctor who recommended or implanted vaginal mesh in a patient after September, 2011.

This article is the third part in a discussion regarding the current multidistrict litigation against the manufacturers of vaginal mesh. Literally thousands of women have suffered serious complications after receiving vaginal mesh implants in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

As a continuation of this four part series of articles on Transvaginal Mesh Litigation, we will discuss the differences in mesh devices and the impact of the surgical methods used.

In August 2005, the FDA approved an application for the DePuy ASRTM XL Acetabular System, allowing DePuy to market the new, metal-on-metal system to patients needing total hip replacement surgery.

This article continues the discussion of the Kaiser Permanente study, conducted over a period of ten years which attempted to determine the risk of bladder cancer in those taking the Type 2 diabetes drug, Actos. Incomplete or missing data were considered potential confounders, or variables which could change the results of the study.