The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content
California Man Suffers Prolonged Pain After Hernia Repair with Parietex Products
Chaffin Luhana LLP
(888) 480-1123

A California man has filed a new hernia mesh lawsuit against manufacturer Covidien, L.P., and Medtronic, Inc. He claims that after being implanted with the Covidien Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh and the Covidien Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh, he suffered permanent injuries and significant pain and suffering.

Medtronic acquired Covidien in January 2015.

Plaintiff Suffers Prolonged Pain After Hernia Surgery with Parietex Mesh

According to his complaint, on September 9, 2013, the plaintiff underwent laparoscopic ventral (abdominal) hernia repair. His surgeon used a piece of Parietex Composite mesh and a piece of Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh in this repair.

The Parietex Composite mesh or ventral patch is designed to help repair small ventral hernias. According to Medtronic’s website, the “shape, size, and the specific fixation and deployment of the system have been designed for optimal abdominal wall conformability, and easy deployment and fixation.” The company adds that the product supports tissue integration while minimizing adhesions.

The Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical mesh is a lightweight mesh that can be custom designed to repair an inguinal (groin) hernia. The company writes on their website that the soft design allows for “gentle placement” over sensitive nerves, and that the product is created from materials that “invite healthy tissue integration.”

The plaintiff, however, claims that he suffered injuries as a result of these products. He states in his complaint that after the repair in 2013, he developed abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Because of these problems, he made multiple visits to the emergency room, and required appointments with his primary care physician and surgery consultations. He also had to use narcotic pain medication to address his symptoms.

On October 24, 2017, the plaintiff returned to the doctor with concerns about continuing pain from the hernia repair. He received pain-relieving injections in his abdomen, and returned three more times for these.

On November 29, 2017, the doctor suggested that the plaintiff undergo minor surgery to remove the sutures and tacks that held the Parietex products in place, in an effort to ease the pain.

On January 27, 2018, the plaintiff had that surgery. The surgeon was able to identify and remove four tacks, but could not identify or remove any sutures. The pain continued, so on March 24, 2018, the plaintiff underwent removal of the failed Parietex products. In his surgical notes, the doctor noted that the mesh had adhered to the tissues, and he had to dissect those to explant the mesh devices.

The plaintiff alleges that he continues to suffer from severe pain.

Plaintiff Claims Parietex Products Defectively Designed

The Parietex Composite mesh is a two-sided mesh with an absorbable collagen barrier on one side and a hydrophilic three-dimensional polyester textile on the other. The collagen barrier is supposed to prevent tissue adhesions, but the plaintiff claims that it breaks down after coming in contact with moisture, leaving the mesh to adhere to nearby tissues and organs.

The Composite mesh is also said to contract over time, which can cause torn sutures. The plaintiff states that the defendants knew or should have known that these products were not safe or effective for hernia repairs.

Comments for this article are closed, but you may still contact the author privately.