The claimant was referred by his GP to a surgeon at hospital as he had a painful right inguinal hernia. He was advised to undergo surgery and in due course he underwent a mesh repair. The claimant subsequently developed a lump over the area of the repair which was painful. After further investigations, revision surgery was agreed and this was carried out by removing the previous mesh and performing a prolene darn repair.
Unfortunately, this did not resolve the claimant’s pain and he was eventually referred to another surgeon who diagnosed a further recurrence of the hernia. Surgery was carried out using an extraperitoneal laparoscopic indirect recurrent right inguinal hernia mesh repair. At a review 2 years later, there was no recurrence and he was pain free.
There has been no rationale to remove the mesh and carry out the prolene darn repair when the hernia initially recurred. There was also a failure to strengthen the wall of the inguinal canal once the mesh had been removed. If appropriate laparoscopic surgery had been carried out at the time of the second operation, the claimant would have avoided the need for the third operation and the pain experienced in the intervening period.
Liability was initially denied by the defendant so proceedings were issued and served. A settlement was agreed shortly after this.
The claim was conducted by Lorna Lymer at our Gloucester office.