From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh.

Abstract

Beginning in the late 1990s, surgeons around the world widely adopted the transvaginal placement of permanent synthetic mesh for the treatment of several common pelvic floor disorders in women. By 2012 it had become the subject of extensive litigation, including one of the biggest mass-tort cases in U.S. history, with litigants reporting debilitating and unexpected complications. Based on qualitative research that includes interviews with surgeons, observations of medical conferences, and analysis of archival materials, we argue the adoption of transvaginal mesh cannot be fully explained without recognizing the role of mindlines, or collective moral-epistemological ways of knowing and acting responsibly. The adoption of mesh was anchored in a mindline focused on repairing anatomy. The harms that resulted from transvaginal mesh necessitated a shift to a focus on patient experience. We analyze the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the re-organization of these surgeons' mindlines, showing that mindlines are not reducible to evidence as defined by EBM and that evidence thus defined facilitated the adoption of transvaginal mesh.