News and Events

Almost Half of Bowel Mesh Operations Were Unnecessary, NHS Trust Admits

View profile for Malcolm Underhill
  • Posted
  • Author

Nearly half of patients who had an artificial mesh surgically implanted into their pelvic floor at a Bristol hospital should have been offered an alternative treatment, North Bristol NHS Trust has revealed.

The NHS trust has informed 57 patients who were treated at Bristol’s Southmead Hospital with the controversial surgery for prolapsed bowels that the use of an artificial mesh may have been unnecessary in their cases.

The technique – known as laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy – has increasingly been used in recent years for treating prolapsed bowels, often in women experiencing complications from childbirth.

An investigation into the use of the technique was first carried out by North Bristol NHS Trust after the BBC highlighted the cases of several patients who were left in chronic pain following their surgery.

Surgeon Tony Dixon, who carried out the majority of the procedures, was suspended in 2017 after multiple women came forward with their stories. Dixon, who worked as a consultant colorectal surgeon at Southmead Hospital as well as at the private Spire Bristol hospital, was a pioneer of using artificial mesh to treat bowel problems. However, it has been suggested that Dixon was too quick to recommend the invasive surgery in cases where alternative treatment may have been more appropriate.

Complications some of Dixon’s former patients have experienced following laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy include:

  • Chronic, unmanageable pain
  • Incontinence
  • The need for additional corrective surgery

While the operations began in the early 2000s, North Bristol NHS Trust’s review only looked at cases from 2007 to 2017. The trust review of patients who received the surgery found that in 57 cases patients should have been offered alternative treatments before resorting to surgery, while in 73 cases the surgery had been appropriate. A further 13 cases are still under investigation.

While the majority of the laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy procedures at Southmead Hospital were carried out by Mr Dixon, another three surgeons also carried out some of the operations.

North Bristol NHS Trust medical director, Dr Chris Burton, has apologised to patients who received the surgery unnecessarily, saying:

"It is unacceptable and we are taking it extremely seriously.”

Dr Burton also said that the trust has taken immediate action to "ensure it couldn't happen again" and that those patients affected have been supported.

Dr Burton added: "We will keep investigating to ensure we have identified those patients affected by these issues, and to find out what happened to learn lessons for future care."

Dixon said he was "unable to comment on specific allegations... due to patient confidentiality and while relevant investigations are on-going".

Dixon added "There is a need for caution in comparing the use of mesh in different procedures with very different risks and outcomes."

Spire Healthcare, which is responsible for the private Spire Hospital where Dixon also carried out the controversial procedure, has stated that it is carrying out its own review which it hopes will be completed in May.

Get expert help to claim laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compensation

If your health and wellbeing has been harmed following unnecessary surgery to implant a pelvic mesh for a prolapsed bowel, claiming compensation can be essential to ensure you can access all of the treatment, help and support you need to rebuild your life.

We can offer you a free initial consultation to discuss your situation and advise you on whether we believe you have grounds for a claim. We can also provide guidance on the potential value of your claim and the claims process. We offer no win, no fee deals, meaning there is usually no upfront cost to you to start a claim.

To find out more about making a medical implant negligence claim or to book your free initial consultation, please get in touch now by calling 0333 123 9099 or requesting a call back.

The information contained within our Blog Articles is provided as general information only. It does not constitute legal or professional advice or seek to be an exhaustive statement of the law and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. For further details, please see our terms of use policy.