NHS report shows scale of mesh scandal

^{A report by NHS Digital has revealed the scale of the vaginal mesh scandal that has affected thousands of women across the UK.}

An audit published by NHS Digital on 17 April reveals data for mesh implants in England between 2007 and 2017.

Mesh devices, made from polypropylene, were introduced to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and prolapse for women following childbirth. Over the past few years, women have campaigned against the devices, claiming they have caused complications such as chronic pain, psychological damage and the erosion of organs are the mesh had eroded.

Since 2008, at least 500 removal operations have been carried out by the NHS every year, the audit shows. Out of 101,538 women treated for SUI with mesh devices, there have been 5,374 removal operations by the NHS.

In December last year, UK health watchdog NICE recommended that vaginal mesh products be banned from treating prolapse due to safety concerns. Figures within the NHS report show that almost half (46%) of women treated for prolapse with a mesh device have attended an appointment with a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon.

Almost the same number (44%) of women treated for SUI with a mesh device attended an outpatient appointment with a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, increasing from 34% in 2009.

The government has previously claimed that complication rates caused by mesh devices were as low as 1.5% and that no regulatory action was needed for the devices.

The report was undertaken after the All Party Parliamentary Group for Surgical Mesh demanded it to establish a clearer picture of the scandal.

Owen Smith MP and chairman of the group said: “These data show that the campaign against mesh has been totally justified in our claim that large numbers of women have been damaged by mesh. Government has previously, repeatedly claimed that mesh was ‘safe’ and that just 1-3% of women suffer serious complications after surgery.”

“The data also shows that the number of operations using mesh has almost halved over the last decade, illustrating that doctors and patients have themselves decided to stop using mesh. This is precisely the opposite effect that you would expect to see with a new innovative and effective treatment, the use of which would normally rise as its value was proved in clinical usage”

“Mesh is proving itself unsafe and ineffective in many women and the doctors are therefore stopping using it. That, in itself, shows that the government, NICE and the MHRA have been wrong to repeatedly defend the use of mesh. NICE should now fast-rack its review of the mesh – still, inexplicably, not due until 2019 – while the NHS should suspend use of mesh until the results of that review are known.” Smith concluded.

The report has drawn criticism from campaign group, Sling the Mesh, who state that ‘the government have selectively used figures in a bid to make mesh risk look low,’ according to Kath Sansom, founder of the group.

Sansom says the report “has not included private patients or women going to GPs for pain medication or antibiotics to treat painful urinary infections so there are thousands not included in this data.”

“The report shows even 8 years after mesh insertion it is still causing problems. This audit has no information on the devastating social and psychological impact on women - we ran a survey that shows 1/3 women in our group of 6,000 have had to stop work and 1/5 reduce their hours due to disability or pain. The impact on women and their use of health service is missing. Our survey showed 54% of women suffer persistent and chronic urinary infections – none of that information is in this audit. 8% in our group are subsequently developing antibiotic resistance due to multiple courses of antibiotics – this is not in the audit. More importantly we would expect to see - as standard - the impact on quality of life: This audit looks at overnight stays, removals and under reported outpatient visits. This is an obscure measure of if a mesh operation is a problem or not.” Sansom said.