{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026981450252951095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.861271676300578, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Medicolegal basics and update on transvaginal mesh in Canada.

In recent years, midurethral slings (MUS) and transvaginal mesh procedures have experienced blazing growth and popularity. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada regulatory advisories threw water on that fire and created a confusing environment surrounding their continued usage. MUS usage has continued in Canada and transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse have become a rarity. Several large organizations (the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction [SUFU], the American Urogynecologic Society [AUGS], and the Canadian Urological Association [CUA]) have developed "mesh statements" to clarify the issues surrounding mesh for patients and medical professionals; however, often the legal system sees things differently in either individual cases or class action lawsuits. In this update, some medicolegal basics are outlined and Canadian context on legal proceedings are highlighted. This summary does not constitute legal advice and physicians should contact experts in legal matters for help with consents, complaints, litigation, or questions.