Doctor accused of falsifying artificial mesh records

Matthew Hill

Health Correspondent, BBC West

A surgeon found to have left patients in “agony” after using artificial mesh to treat prolapsed bowels faces allegations he falsified medical notes.

Tony Dixon was suspended after the surgery was found to have caused harm to hundreds of patients at two hospitals in Bristol.

Now, a new hearing will examine Dr Dixon’s records. He is accused of dishonestly creating patient records long after he was involved in their care, something he “strongly denies”.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) will begin Monday. It will examine claims medical records for seven patients contained false information, and were not created at the correct time.

A spokesperson for Dr Dixon said: “[He] always endeavoured to provide the highest standard of care to his patients.

“He strongly disputes falsifying any medical records and will provide his detailed evidence about those serious allegations to the tribunal, initially by way of a detailed witness statement which he has provided to the General Medical Council.”

Dr Dixon built up an international reputation as the go-to expert for patients with prolapsed bowels.

He used a technique known as mesh rectopexy to treat bowel problems.

Through the procedure, mesh implants are placed into the body to treat pelvic organ prolapse which can occur after childbirth.

The mesh, which is usually made from synthetic polypropylene, is intended to repair damaged or weakened tissue.

At the point of his suspension in 2024, the MTPS said Dr Dixon’s “misconduct was so serious that action needed be taken to protect members of the public”.

But, the tribunal considered that a longer period of suspension would be unduly punitive, especially taking into account the period that Dr Dixon had already been the subject of fitness to practise proceedings.

As founder of the Pelvic Floor Society, he drew heavily on claims he had made in medical publications about the success rates of the rectopexy mesh surgery he pioneered.

But now questions are being raised by the MPTS about the honesty his follow-up data which has to be written contemporaneously.

A BBC Inside Out investigation in 2017 first revealed Dr Dixon had carried out unnecessary operations and raised questions about whether he provided adequate medical follow.

Two investigations at Southmead Hospital and Spire Bristol subsequently found Mr Dixon caused harm to hundreds of people by carrying out operations that were not necessary.

Both hospitals apologised to victims after his suspension.

The MPTS had previously found that he failed to obtain informed consent or trial alternative treatment and not to have adequately investigated symptoms.

The BBC has discovered that all of Dr Dixon’s papers in the journal Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, now have an ‘expressions of concern’ in the relevant papers in Colorectal Disease.

They centre on concerns about the honesty of his claimed follow up on patients.

Prof Susan Galandiuk, editor in chief of the journal Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, which has published two papers with Tony Dixon’s data said: “Many people will read journal articles and will act based on their conclusions, in terms of practicing surgeons.

“Many other surgeons who are writing articles will cite these articles and base their conclusions on these.

“Sometimes or often these papers are used when guidelines are formulated or referred to. So their conclusions can go on to influence many different things .”

The BBC has separately approached more than 40 former mesh patients of Dr Dixon via the Rectopexy Mesh Victims and Support group.

None of them recognise the follow up form which he had claimed to have used in publications for up to five years post operative follow up.

They include Debbie Cooper Jones, a dentist from Gloucester.

She said: “He seemed to have done quite a lot of research from the papers that were on his website.

“So I was a bit surprised at my lack of follow-up because he was quoting so many statistics.

“Perhaps, in hindsight it seems a little bit odd that there wasn’t that close monitoring of us given the nature of the surgeries we were having and maybe even the novelty of them that it was ground-breaking work.”

It will take several weeks for the tribunal decide on the new allegations.

That decision is crucial when it comes to eventually deciding whether Dr Dixon will eventually be able to reapply to go back on the medical register again.