Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Observational analysis of mesh related complications in urogynecologic procedures

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the use of mesh has expanded in gynecologic surgeries in the aim of correcting pelvic organ prolapse. Because there has been a lot of complications that were reported, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has requested the withdrawal of many products from the market. Recently, many countries have called for the suspension of vaginal mesh products from the market. The objective of this review is to analyze the incidence of the complications that arise after vaginal mesh surgeries with an insight to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations on the management of those complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Davidson ER, Casas-Puig V, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Ferrando C (2019) Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and patient-centered outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal uterosacral ligament and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000710(publish ahead of print)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369(9566):1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Scott NW, McCormack K, Graham P, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant AM (2002) Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD002197. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bezerra CA, Bruschini H (2001) Suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD001754. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Clavé H et al (2004) Changing attitudes on the surgical treatment of urogenital prolapse: birth of the tension-free vaginal mesh. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 33(7):577–588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(7):743–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0234-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H et al (2012) Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J 23(1):5–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1581-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318203e6a5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI et al (2008) Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 112(5):1131–1142. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181898ba9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellington DR, Richter HE (2013) Indications, contraindications, and complications of mesh in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 56(2):276–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e318282f2e8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Milani AL, Damoiseaux A, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ (2018) Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 29(6):847–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3512-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mangir N, Roman S, Chapple CR, MacNeil S (2019) Complications related to use of mesh implants in surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: infection or inflammation? World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02679-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Gynecological mesh: The medical device that has 100,000 women suing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-scientific-gynecological-mesh-the-medical-device-that-has-100000-women-suing-2019-04-17/. Accessed 19 May 2019

  14. Kaplan S, Goldstein M (2019) F.D.A. Halts U.S. sales of pelvic mesh, citing safety concerns for women. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/health/vaginal-pelvic-mesh-fda.html. Accessed 19 May 2019

  15. (2017) Management of mesh and graft complications in gynecologic surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23(3):171–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000425

  16. Manzano JP, da Crochik FS, Pugliesi FG, de Almeida RVS, de Melo PA, Nunes RLV (2019) Robot-assisted infratrigonal vesicovaginal fistula repair. Case Rep Urol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2845237

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Melody GF (1955) PARAVAGINAL HEMATOMAS—their recognition and management postpartum. Calif Med 82(1):16–18

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Monib S, Ritchie A, Thabet E (2011) Idiopathic retroperitoneal hematoma. J Surg Tech Case Rep 3(1):49–51. https://doi.org/10.4103/2006-8808.78475

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lagerbäck T, Fritzell P, Hägg O et al (2018) Effectiveness of surgery for sciatica with disc herniation is not substantially affected by differences in surgical incidences among three countries: results from the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian spine registries. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5768-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kuponiyi O, Alleemudder DI, Latunde-Dada A, Eedarapalli P (2014) Nerve injuries associated with gynaecological surgery. Obstet Gynaecol 16(1):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Al-Khodairy AWT, Bovay P, Gobelet C (2007) Sciatica in the female patient: anatomical considerations, aetiology and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 16(6):721–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-0074-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sorensen J, Bautista KE, Lamvu G, Feranec J (2018) Evaluation and treatment of female sexual pain: a clinical review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2379

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. (2007) Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th ed. Ref Rev 21(1):41–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/09504120710719671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mock S, Reynolds WS, Dmochowski RR (2014) Trans-vaginal mesh revision: a comprehensive review on etiologies and management strategies with emphasis on postoperative pain outcomes. LUTS Low Urin Tract Symptoms 6(2):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mitchell L, King M, Brillhart H, Goldstein A (2017) Cervical ectropion may be a cause of desquamative inflammatory vaginitis. Sex Med 5(3):e212–e214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2017.03.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson D, Staskin D, Laterza RM, Koelbl H (2012) Defining female voiding dysfunction: ICI-RS 2011. Neurourol Urodyn 31(3):313–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Aoki Y, Brown HW, Brubaker L, Cornu JN, Daly JO, Cartwright R (2017) Urinary incontinence in women. Nat Rev Dis Primer 3:17042. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.42

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique, Rennes, France

    Bassel Abouzeid

  2. American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Georges El Hasbani

  3. The George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA

    Imad Mufarrij

Authors
  1. Bassel Abouzeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georges El Hasbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Imad Mufarrij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bassel Abouzeid.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Bassel Abouzeid, MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Georges El Hasbani, MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Imad Mufarrij, MD, MS, FACOG declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abouzeid, B., El Hasbani, G. & Mufarrij, I. Observational analysis of mesh related complications in urogynecologic procedures. J Robotic Surg 14, 377–382 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01020-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01020-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation