World Mesh Awareness Day 2017

World Mesh Awareness Day 2017

0


Back in 2013 when I decided we needed a day to raise awareness to try to stop the devastation from happening to more women,

I chose the word ‘world’ because a huge percentage of women around the world, are now affected by complications from pelvic mesh implants. Not only that, but you will read later in this blog, how even more unsuspecting women in poor countries, will also know how bad this can get and they will have no recourse but to live with the pain.

There are many days when I feel like we are losing the battle against mesh, because our governments are not listening to the injured women around the world. However, every now and again, I am given a small glimmer of hope that some women are reading, learning and are saying “No” to mesh. I want to share with you what one woman wrote, who is NOT injured by an implant, on this World Mesh Awareness Day 2017.

By Sandra.
“I hope you don’t mind that I’m writing a comment even though I have not had a mesh implant. I started seeing the lawsuit ads on TV and was curious what they were all about so I started looking for info. Sometimes I think lawsuits are a bit shady, like the baby powder ovarian cancer suits. But what I read about mesh implants was shocking, terrifying, and infuriating, and I am 100% certain that those of you with mesh implants deserve gigantic lawsuit settlements and the mesh companies should be barred from doing any more business. I wish I could be on a jury. Prolapse is so common, just about any woman would be a candidate for mesh. So, there are many, many victims. Why is mesh still in use? And what kind of doctors could still implant it knowing full well that the complication rate is so high and the complications are so torturous, pain and disability from the mesh and pain and disability from repeated surgeries to correct the problems? This is as shocking as the fen-phen debacle, and it’s interesting to note that there too the victims were almost entirely women. Turns out the drug company that made fenfluramine and pushed the fen-phen combo on unsuspecting women had a dim view of women, thought they weren’t very smart. It makes me wonder if the mesh manufacturers are the same. I pray for all of you who are suffering. I pray for resolution to your pain and suffering and big $$ awards.”

The great news is, she didn’t just read one blog, she kept reading and this is the second comment she left.

By Sandra “Your site is full of useful information and I have already passed it on to my sisters, mother, and sister in law, and my sisters will pass it on to their daughters. So we are 7 women who will never allow mesh to be implanted thanks to you and your web site.

I saw your post about Caldera. I thought it was odd that there wasn’t an MD among their company execs. Maybe that’s an unfortunate standard. What really sickened me though is that Caldera has announced that its sending kits (with reusable implanting tools) to poverty-stricken countries so mesh will be implanted in women who will have no reasonable way to deal with complications. It’s bad enough for victims here in the US, in Europe, and in Australia. Imagine being some struggling poor third-world woman with little or no access to decent medical care and then trying to cope with severe pain or an infection from mesh. Caldera pats themselves on the back by proclaiming that they’ll be eradicating suffering. What a joke. For many of the women they will trade one form of suffering for another much worse form. The people working for that company must not have souls. They know the frequency of complications and they know that complications often require one or more surgeries, antibiotics, or other treatments that the women in those countries will not have access to. It boggles my mind.”

Bless you Linda.

SEVEN women will now know the truth about these implants and hopefully will not believe their local doctors if/when they have a female issue. Reading her comments made me feel warm while at the same time, gave me chills because she is right. Women will continue to suffer endlessly and their deaths will be announced as something to do with their lifestyles, not on implants placed in their bodies.

Then there is the other edge to this sword. Read this.

By Laurie.My TOT sling completely crippled my left leg. I had the mesh tape implanted almost 2 years ago (2015). Almost immediately after that I could barely walk. To make a long story short, my left leg contracted so much that, 3 months after the implant I could only stand at a 90 degree angle. I had emergency mesh removal at that time. But when I woke up from surgery, I had horrific leg pain. It became discovered that the mesh had clamped on to the adductor tendon in my leg. And when the mesh was removed, my adductor muscles completely SEPARATED. I have had several surgeries and flights out to a Philadelphia specialist to try to help me. He reattached the muscles but I still can’t walk. I have been on crutches for 2 years but my leg keeps getting worse still. I am afraid I am just about to end up living in a wheelchair. I have already been doing some of that. I am afraid that the mesh just completely hosed my muscles. It has destroyed my life. I am pretty much housebound because it is just so hard and painful to go anywhere. And I feel so alone because I seem to be the only person on the planet who has had her thigh muscles severed from mesh. I was such a healthy and active person. And now I feel like I have lost my life. I’m very sad”

First, Sandra is right. Childbirth is a most natural thing and we love our children, but over time any woman can have a prolapse or other female issue. We all wish women like Sandra were on a jury but the sad truth is only 18 women out of 80,000 cases went to trial and the rest of us must fight for a pittance. I will give you the link at the end of this blog to tell you more.

Sandra asked a question that has been asked by thousands of injured women. “Why is mesh still in use” The sad truth is, our governments do not stop bad things from happening to good people, whether it be drugs or implants. It is rare for any drug to be removed, even after many have died from serious reactions.

The FDA in the USA has put out several warnings about these implants, including that the manufacturers should redesign the tools used in bladder sling kits. Did the FDA insist that they remove all kits that are left on hospital operating room shelves? No, they didn’t. So badly designed or not, they have been continually used in unsuspecting women. I know the results of these kits because mine was found to be defective in a trial against the manufacturer, Boston Scientific. Did that change anything. No! I will give you more links to read at the bottom of this blog.

Sandra mentioned the Fen-phen lawsuits and if you don’t know what that is, it was a diet drug Read this.

Primary pulmonary hypertension is a serious and potentially life threatening cardiovascular condition, and a 1996 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found a twenty-three-fold increase in the risk of developing PPH when using fen phen for more than three months. In 1996 alone there were 18,000,000 prescriptions written for the appetite suppressant fen phen, and in the U.S. there are estimates that between 6 million and 7 million people took fen phen.

Fen Phen is not the only drug that caused major problems and even death in people of this country. How long was this drug on the market and when was it removed? Read this.

Fen-Phen, Redux and Pondimin. These diet drugs were removed from the market in 1997 but consumers are still suffering the health damage done by these products. The Fen Phen drugs caused heart valve damage and a frequently fatal condition known as Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) or Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (PPH). I will give you another link to read, later sharing the history of this drug.

When Sandra read the blog I wrote about Caldera, she was as shocked and horrified as I was that the manufacturer Caldera, is going to ‘donate’ kits to be used in the women of poor countries. Why will they do this? Well, the sad truth is, they did not keep enough insurance to cover women in this country, damaged by their implants, so they must DUMP them on poor unsuspecting women in poor countries and get a nice TAX WRITE-OFF. Yes, no flies on these arse holes! Excuse my language, but I hate these people who make money and still find a way to get a write-off.

The truth is, we women are not allowed to tell what our settlements are or we get NOTHING! So, they can get away with this and never apologize for all the injuries that manufacturers have caused thousands of women already, who will live with continuous pain and more complications. Yes, MORE complications because for many of us, mesh is the nasty gift that keeps on giving. In fact, the good doctors of UCLA who are trying hard to help the women who suffer, tell any woman during their first consult appointment that even after it is removed, 30% will remain with permanent damage.

Now on to Laurie. Laurie, I want you to know that the implant didn’t just clamp onto the abductor, the doctor put it there and he/she was responsible for what happened to you, but you rarely can sue your doctor because they are protected. Instead all you can do is sue the manufacturer for product liability because the manufacturers are responsible for making the tools and implants, that are doing more harm than good and ruining women’s lives.

I wish I could say I don’t know anyone else who uses crutches, walking sticks and wheelchairs, but sadly I know many, including me. However, whoever removed Laurie’s implant should have had their medical license revoked. But of course, that won’t happen. I turned my own doctor in to the State of Texas medical board after my first surgery and they found no wrong doing. Laurie did not say if it was the original implanting doctor or another doctor who removed it, so I don’t know, but she is left not only with her permanent damage, but with thousands of dollars in medical bills for the rest of her life and she will need constant care and pain relief.

I know how this is, because every day I feel like someone cut off my leg and yet it is still attached to my body because the implanting doctor left me with my right leg damaged beyond repair. I know that other women who read this blog will completely understand this terrible injury. I met two British women while out at UCLA the last time I went there, both used crutches and often wheelchairs when their pain was so bad. One told me her story and showed me how her leg had turned inwards. Regardless of removal, some complications can never be repaired and you are left with a lifetime of pain and damage. Dr. Raz at UCLA, DID remove the British woman’s mesh and did NOT cut or damage her worse than she already was.

Back in 2011, the lawsuits brought awareness to the mesh implants. However, non-injured women do not know that cases are still being settled after all this time and will be for at least 2 more years. Many of us have not received one penny up to the present time. This means we rely on any help we can get from those who love us and if some women don’t have anyone to help, they will become homeless. It doesn’t matter what career you had, or funds in your retirement or savings, all it takes is one ‘small’ pelvic surgery and everything will be gone.

I understand how Sandra viewed lawsuits because I did too. Our TV screens in this country are inundated with ads by lawyers for drugs, and other products. When it doesn’t affect your life, you think it is all bullshit! Until something like this affects either your life, or the life of someone you love. Only then you feel outrage, sadness and a sense of hopelessness, because there is nothing you can do to help them.

You may think that these manufacturers will be liable for an injured women’s lifetime of care and medical expenses and must apologize. However, you will be wrong. The cut off dates for surgery left many women underpaid for surgeries they had already had and continuous surgeries and after care. There is NO compensation for any future surgeries or care. We are on our own.

I have been writing for almost 6 ½ years and I am drained. I still live with my own permanent complications, have no extra money on hand and rely on my wonderful daughter to drive me anywhere I need to go. I fight every day from the moment I get out of bed to survive my complications and so do many, many other women. Our voices were not heard in any courtroom and our government pays little heed about what has happened to us. We are simply collateral damage.

KITS. I have been a designer for many years, in fact most of my life. Many years ago, I was a knitwear designer and I travelled to England. Australia and all around this country, teach classes, techniques and doing fashion shows to show my designs. I had a huge following at that time because my designs were unique and for knitting machines. I had a large shop in the Hill Country of Texas, called Heart of Texas and I taught seminars every weekend throughout the year.

Women from all over Texas flocked to my classes because I used many unique things, such as beads and fabric in my knitwear designs. When women saw the designs, they wanted to buy the fabrics and beads in kit form to go with the design books I wrote. So, before I travelled or held a class, my daughter who was a teenager at that time and worked for me, and myself, began cutting pieces of fabric, counting beads and making kits. It was quite a bit of work for us, but became very lucrative to pay the expenses of travelling. Most women bought one or more kits during any class as well as several books I had written and they were happy because they could not otherwise find the fabrics and beads that I used.

What I learned from this was that these kits could help me pay my bills and I made it easier and less expensive for anyone to make the garments I designed.

Implant manufacturers, did not make up kits until early 2000 and they found out how much money kits could bring in and how they could teach a quick class to any doctor who had access to women with female issues. The coffers filled and other manufacturers got on board and it became an epidemic of BAD kits on the market. Any good or bad doctor could do these surgeries after a weekend of lessons. I wrote a blog to help you learn more and why this is happening to so many women which I will share with you.

Please injured ladies, share this with anyone you know who does not seem to care what happened to you because they don’t believe you, and with anyone else who is considering a female surgery. The following are links that I hope it will make them reconsider.

I wish I could say “Happy World Mesh Awareness Day” but there is no happiness in being injured by these implants. Now read these links and save yourself a lifetime of pain, injury and financial loss.

The following blogs will tell you more about when mesh was first used and how many patents have been filed. There have been many more patents filed since I wrote that blog. However, these lawsuits are coming to an end and many new women won’t be able to get a lawyer due to the time is up. You should also know that lawyers have been screwed out of funds, because some of these manufacturers didn’t keep enough insurance. Any woman with an implant who has problems in the future, will not be able to get a lawyer, because they won’t take on these manufacturers, due to their own losses. Now read more.

You may not believe implant kits are still sitting on hospital shelves, but take it from me, they are. None have been recalled. This is what happened to me and the blog gives you the true facts about women and trials. I can assure you I will not wind up a millionaire because of a lawsuit for my injuries. http://www.meshangels.com/my-bladder-sling-defective/

This blog will tell you about how mesh first came to be in use as a medical implant. http://www.meshangels.com/when-was-mesh-first-used-complications/

You can search the pages and pages of patents over the last several years, for female incontinence. I can assure you it will take you a long time. http://patents.justia.com/search?q=female+urinary+incontinence+implant

These kits are making millions for both medical manufacturers, hospitals and doctors. The FDA has warned about these kits, but does nothing to change this and stop doctors from using them. http://www.meshangels.com/the-fda-injured-women/

There are two blogs I wrote about Caldera, one of several mesh manufacturers. This is the first and it will take you to the second blog. http://www.meshangels.com/caldera-screws-women/

This blog will take you to a YouTube video to see how they teach doctors on cadaver parts. It also lists doctors who are on the take from manufacturers. http://www.meshangels.com/manufacturer-kickbacks-to-doctors/

Latest news from Great Britain. This is a full TV video of a show where British women talk about the damage done to their bodies by these implants.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p050lrnj

This article is about women who are suing the health system in their country, because they were not informed of the damage caused by mesh implants.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39567240?SThisFB

Can we sue the FDA? No, we can’t.
http://www.lawyerlocator.com/mass-tort/suing-the-fda-for-approving-defective-drugs

Fen Phen history. http://www.beckerlaw.com/legal-services/drug-injury-lawyer/diet-drugs/history/

Past World Mesh Awareness Day blogs. Each year since I began the World Mesh Awareness Day in 2013, I have chosen a different subject to inform those who do not yet suffer with mesh complications. Last year’s blog will take you to the others, including stories from other women and information concerning some of the MANY complications women have after surgery, or over many years. http://www.meshangels.com/3rd-world-mesh-awareness-day

I decided to search through a patent link, for my own mesh implant company, Boston Scientific. This is just one page and there are 3 more. All of them are for urinary incontinence in women. They would not patent this much if they could not make millions from these tools and implants.

Patent number: 7014607

Abstract: A surgical device for use in a minimally invasive procedure to treat urinary incontinence can include a dilator coupled to a curved needle at one end and a sling at the opposite end. Urinary incontinence can be treated minimally invasively. One treatment includes positioning the sling on an anterior portion of the urethra to provide proper coaptation to the urethra.

Type: Grant

Filed: November 26, 2003

Date of Patent: March 21, 2006

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Barry N. Gellman

Patent number: 9402705

Abstract: An apparatus and method for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. The apparatus includes a suburethral sling having an adjustment member for adjusting the tension of the sling both during the procedure and post-procedure. The method includes using a needle to simultaneously implant the sling and to deliver a local anesthetic in the groin area while implanting the sling.

Type: Grant

Filed: July 30, 2008

Date of Patent: August 2, 2016

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventors: Roger P. Goldberg, Douglas Scherr

Publication number: 20120330094

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Application

Filed: September 6, 2012

Publication date: December 27, 2012

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Publication number: 20110213388

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Application

Filed: April 1, 2011

Publication date: September 1, 2011

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Publication number: 20090209994

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Application

Filed: March 24, 2009

Publication date: August 20, 2009

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Publication number: 20130190720

Abstract: The invention relates to bulking agents and apparatus and methods for using the disclosed bulking agents. The bulking agents can be used to treat such conditions as urinary and fecal incontinence, gastro-esophageal reflux, aneurismal blockages, and cosmetic deformities. The invention also relates to an injection method that reduces the injection pressure required to place the bulking agents.

Type: Application

Filed: March 11, 2013

Publication date: July 25, 2013

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.


Patent number:
7927342

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Grant

Filed: March 24, 2009

Date of Patent: April 19, 2011

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux


Patent number:
7527633

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Grant

Filed: June 5, 2001

Date of Patent: May 5, 2009

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Patent number: 8858575

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Grant

Filed: April 1, 2011

Date of Patent: October 14, 2014

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Patent number: 8808312

Abstract: Methods and devices for treating female stress urinary incontinence are disclosed. The methods include transvaginally accessing the pelvic cavity and introducing a suburethral sling into the retropubic space. In some embodiments the ends of the sling are attached to an anatomical support structure. In other embodiments, the ends of the suburethral sling are not attached to an anatomical support structure. The devices include a surgical instrument for blunt dissection of the pelvic cavity which includes a curved shaft and a blunt distal end. A hook deployment device may optionally be attached to the surgical instrument.

Type: Grant

Filed: September 6, 2012

Date of Patent: August 19, 2014

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Robert F. Rioux

Patent number: 5836314

Abstract: The surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence includes: 1) a technique of probe passage to avoid injuring the bladder and to provide a more accurate and reproducible capture of the pubocervical fascia lateral to the bladder neck and urethra, 2) anchor fixation of the suspending sutures to the pubic bone to decrease the risk of suture pull through from above and to decrease post-operative pain and 3) a simple and reproducible technique to set a limited tension of the suspending sutures. These methods and results of procedures with some of these methods are described. Novel drill guides, suture passers, suture tensioners, and various related tools and devices for use in the surgical method are also disclosed.

Type: Grant

Filed: June 6, 1996

Date of Patent: November 17, 1998

Assignee: Boston Scientific Technology, Inc.

Inventors: Theodore V. Benderev, Neil H. Naves, Mark J. Legome

Publication number: 20120016183

Abstract: A surgical device for use in a minimally invasive procedure to treat urinary incontinence can include a dilator coupled to a curved needle at one end and a sling at the opposite end. Urinary incontinence can be treated minimally invasively. One treatment includes positioning the sling on an anterior portion of the urethra to provide proper coaptation to the urethra.

Type: Application

Filed: September 23, 2011

Publication date: January 19, 2012

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Barry N. Gellman


Publication number:
20070060788

Abstract: A surgical device for use in a minimally invasive procedure to treat urinary incontinence can include a dilator coupled to a curved needle at one end and a sling at the opposite end. Urinary incontinence can be treated minimally invasively. One treatment includes positioning the sling on an anterior portion of the urethra to provide proper coaptation to the urethra.

Type: Application

Filed: November 16, 2006

Publication date: March 15, 2007

Applicant: Boston Scientific SciMed Inc.

Inventor: Barry Gellman


Patent number:
8845511

Abstract: A surgical device for use in a minimally invasive procedure to treat urinary incontinence can include a dilator coupled to a curved needle at one end and a sling at the opposite end. Urinary incontinence can be treated minimally invasively. One treatment includes positioning the sling on an anterior portion of the urethra to provide proper coaptation to the urethra.

Type: Grant

Filed: September 23, 2011

Date of Patent: September 30, 2014

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Barry N. Gellman


Patent number:
7413540

Abstract: Devices and methods relating to percutaneous and hiatal approaches for treating urinary incontinence are provided herein. In particular, guide member placement devices, sling application catheters, tissue dissectors/dilators, sling application devices and a sling application system, tissue expanders, grasping devices, and balloon catheters are disclosed herein. Methods for using the preceding devices to stabilize the bladder neck or the urethral floor in order to maintain or improve urinary incontinence are also disclosed.

Type: Grant

Filed: February 9, 2004

Date of Patent: August 19, 2008

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventors: Barry N. Gellman, Rodney Brenneman, David Sauvageau, William Pintauro, Rodney Appell, Armand A. Morin


Patent number:
7691050

Abstract: Devices and methods relating to percutaneous and hiatal approaches for treating urinary incontinence are provided herein. In particular, guide member placement devices, sling application catheters, tissue dissectors/dilators, sling application devices and a sling application system, tissue expanders, grasping devices, and balloon catheters are disclosed herein. Methods for using the preceding devices to stabilize the bladder neck or the urethral floor in order to maintain or improve urinary incontinence are also disclosed.

Type: Grant

Filed: February 9, 2004

Date of Patent: April 6, 2010

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventors: Barry N. Gellman, Rodney Brenneman, David Sauvageau, William Pintauro, Rodney Appell, Armand A. Morin

Publication number: 20070015953

Abstract: The invention provides, in various embodiments, systems, devices and methods relating to employing soft tissue anchors in combination with an implantable sling to treat urinary incontinence.

Type: Application

Filed: July 13, 2005

Publication date: January 18, 2007

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventor: Brian MacLean


Publication number:
20120010462

Abstract: The invention provides, in various embodiments, systems, devices and methods relating to employing soft tissue anchors in combination with an implantable sling to treat urinary incontinence.

Type: Application

Filed: September 23, 2011

Publication date: January 12, 2012

Applicant: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.

Inventor: Brian MacLean


Publication number:
20070010830

Abstract: The invention, in various embodiments, provides systems, devices, and methods for treating urinary incontinence.

Type: Application

Filed: July 26, 2006

Publication date: January 11, 2007

Applicant: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventors: Barry Gellman, Rodney Brenneman, David Sauvageau, William Pintauro, Rodney Appell, Armand Morin


Patent number:
8814777

Abstract: The invention, in various embodiments, provides systems, devices, and methods for treating urinary incontinence.

Type: Grant

Filed: October 31, 2007

Date of Patent: August 26, 2014

Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Inventors: Barry N. Gellman, Rodney Brenneman, David Sauvageau, William Pintauro, Rodney Appell, Armand A. Morin

This is the link for Boston Scientific. Just put the name of your own implant manufacturer and add urinary incontinence to see all their inventions. http://patents.justia.com/search?q=Boston+Scientific+urinary+incontinence

Leave a Reply