Surgical mesh infection

...Ms W felt the doctor undertook only a cursory inspection and that he seemed to be suggesting she was exaggerating her pain...

  • Date: 29 July 2019

Day 1

Ms L, 48, attends her GP with a paraumbilical hernia present for two years. She is the mother of three young children and is mildly obese. Lately the hernia has become more painful and yesterday she suffered a severe painful episode. The GP refers Ms L to the surgical unit at a local private hospital.

Day 2

Ms L attends the surgical clinic and is seen by upper GI surgeon, Mr K. On examination she is found to have an obese abdomen with a small paraumbilical hernia which is easily reducible. She has had intense abdominal pain recently and Mr K suspects she has suffered an episode of incarceration. He advises surgical repair and discusses potential complications and recurrence rates.

Day 20

The patient is admitted to hospital and signs a consent form. The risks documented include infection, as well as bruising, bleeding and potential recurrence and damage to the underlying bowel. Mr K undertakes the hernia repair using a mesh in the preperitoneal space. She is reviewed the next morning and discharged home.

Day 22

Ms L returns to hospital complaining of bruising and discomfort at the surgery site. She is reviewed by an emergency physician who notes swelling, a haematoma and a discharge. A wound infection is diagnosed and the patient is commenced on Flucloxacillin. Two days later Mr K reviews the patient at the surgical clinic and confirms that Ms L has an ongoing post-operative wound infection. Cellulitis is noted and pus is expressed from the wound. Mr K considers the possibility of a mesh infection and arranges an ultrasound scan.

Day 26

Four days later Mr K receives the US scan report which shows no abscess cavity but considerable inflammation surrounding the mesh. A CT is arranged for the next day.

Day 29

Mr K, receives the CT scan which confirms extensive deep inflammation but not affecting adjacent bowel loops. He reviews Ms L and advises urgent removal of the mesh and application of vacuum dressing (VAC). He offers to admit Ms L at short notice for the procedure but she has pressing work commitments and wants to seek a second opinion. She is prescribed further antibiotics and 10 days later has the mesh removed at a different hospital.


SOLICITORS acting for Ms L submit a letter of claim alleging clinical negligence in the delayed diagnosis and treatment of her surgical wound infection. In particular the letter alleges that Mr K failed, within a reasonable period, to obtain the result of the ultrasound scan, arrange a CT scan and discuss the need for surgical management. Mr K is also accused of failing to provide Ms L with sufficient information to make an informed choice on the need for mesh removal surgery – or the potential complications of delaying surgery for a second opinion.

This allegedly resulted in an unacceptable delay of over 10 days – with associated pain and suffering – before the mesh was surgically removed and the infection fully treated.

MDDUS, acting on Mr K’s behalf, commissions an expert opinion from a consultant colorectal surgeon. Based on his report, a letter of response is composed denying liability. In regard to the alleged delay in obtaining an ultrasound result and follow-up CT scan, the expert points out that Ms L was informed of the US report within three days and a CT scan was arranged for the next day. Ms L was then seen by the surgeon in his clinic a day later and options for further treatment discussed. The expert says such a time frame would not be considered unreasonable.

The expert also rejects the allegation that Ms L was not given sufficient treatment information. The patient notes show that Ms L was advised of the urgent need to remove the mesh but she chose to delay the procedure. A letter to Ms L’s GP records the surgeon’s willingness to admit the patient at short notice.

Breach of duty of care is denied, as is causation in that the treatment delay was an informed choice made by Ms L. No more is heard from the claimant and the case file is eventually closed.

Key points

  • Medical complications are a risk in any surgical procedure but are rarely a matter of clinical liability.
  • Good record keeping justifying clinical decisions is the best defence in any legal action.


This page was correct at the time of publication. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.

Read more from this issue of FYi

FYi is published twice a year and distributed to MDDUS members in Foundation Year 1 and Foundation Year 2 training programmes and final year medical students throughout the UK. It provides a mix of articles on risk, medico-legal and regulatory matters as well as general features and profiles of interest to trainee doctors. Browse all current and back issues below.
In this issue

Related Content

Medico-legal principles

Case study: Surgical infection

Case study: Failure to communicate

Save this article

Save this article to a list of favourite articles which members can access in their account.

Save to library

For registration, or any login issues, please visit our login page.