These slings are supposed to secure a woman from the inside. In time, all the device has given for many of these women are a series of heartaches not to mention money down the drain.

On the 5th of February, 2013 the first multidistrict litigation (MDL) over transvaginal mesh lawsuits will go to trial. It will be overseen by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. Named defendant of said MDL is American Medical Systems (AMS). Hundreds of lawsuits against different mesh manufacturers have been consolidated into different MDLs. Apparently, Judge Goodwin is handling five such mesh MDLs.  
Generating Discontent
Lawsuits filed against AMS are piling up. A month ago, a woman from Connecticut detailed in her lawsuit how the Monarch Sling, an AMS mesh implant, has given her complications.
Added to that, her husband seeks compensation for loss of consortium (meaning the loss of a wife’s services, financial support and affection among other things). Further, said lawsuit alleges the sling from AMS had a defective design and lacked proper testing prior to seeing market.
Broken Promises
Many of the transvaginal mesh products sold by AMS were designed for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse(POP). It seems ironic that many of these women develop worse complications after being implanted.
Promised a solution to the embarrassing leaks, women are saddened to find a more severe incontinence complication as a result. Worse, complications like bowel perforation, mesh extrusion, chronic infection have also been reported.
Negative Feedback on Transvaginal Mesh
From 2005 up to 2007, a thousand complaints concerning the transvaginal mesh have reached the office of the FDA.  Instead of dying down, the number of complaints almost tripled from 2008 to 2010. Seeing a potentially-enormous problem, the FDA placed its hand on the scene issuing an advisory by July of 2011.  The agency stipulated that the transvaginal mesh implant exposes women to far more greater risks in comparison to traditional non-mesh repairs.
However, though the number of complaints seem staggering,  this could be just the tip of an iceberg. Dr. Amir Shariati, a gynaecological urologist, stipulates that adverse events reported  between 2008-2010 are but a mere 1 percent or less of the hundreds of thousands of women implanted.
These women would not have given so much faith had they not been made to believe. That is why they are suing.