Abstract
In July of 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a safety communication entitled “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.” The stated purpose of this communication is to inform health care providers and patients that serious complications with placement of this mesh are not rare and that it is not clear that these repairs are more effective than nonmesh repair. The comments regarding efficacy are based on a systematic review of the scientific literature from 1996–2011 conducted by the FDA. Our review of the literature during this time yields some different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of mesh use in prolapse repair. It may be useful to consider this information prior to making recommendations regarding mesh use in prolapse surgery according to the recent UPDATE.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber MD, Visco AG, Weidner AC et al (2000) Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1402–1411
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(360):e1-7
Nygaard IE, McCreery, Brubaker L et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823
Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L et al (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 22:789–798
Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2):242–250
Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB et al (2007) Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:78.e1–78.e7
Maher C, Feiner B, Glazener CMA. (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (4): CD004014
Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1418–1421
Lo TS, Wang AC (1998) Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. J Gynecol Surg 14(2):59–64
Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL et al (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26
Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(2):455–462
Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I et al (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele. Int Urogynecol J 19:467–471
Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898
Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 19:1611–1616
Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116(10):1380–1386
Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramao SS et al (2010) Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 21:389–394
Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2):293–303
Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(235):e1–e8
Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836
Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE et al (2008) Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 112(1):49–55
Deitz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL (2011) Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(173):e1–e4
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Berfstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506
Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267
Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1533–1538
Nilsson CG, Palva K, Rezapour M, Falconer C (2008) Eleven years prospective follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 19(8):1043–1047
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Tracy Papsun for her efforts in compiling the list of surgeons from the Pelvic Surgeons Network who have endorsed this manuscript.
Funding
No funding was received for the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
Miles Murphy is a consultant and research site for Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology and American Medical Systems, research site for Bard; Adam Holzberg is a consultant and research site for Boston Scientific; Heather van Raalte is a consultant and research site for Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology, research site for Bard; Howard B. Goldman is a consultant for Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology; Neeraj Kohli has no disclosures; Vincent Lucente is a consultant and research site for Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology, Bard, and American Medical Systems.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Additional information
References 11, 14, and 18 report on the same RCT at three different lengths of follow-up.
This manuscript has been endorsed by over 600 members of the Pelvic Surgeons Network. A listing of the endorsing physicians of this commentary can be found at https://docs.google.com/leaf?id = 0B1tkV5dMf-zIMjhjN2M4Y2ItMDNjMi00NmNmLWIzOWQtMTJmODkwMjY5YTA4&hl = en_US. Further contributions to this debate can be found at doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1580-3, doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1596-8, and doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1597-7.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
DOCX 53 kb
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, M., Holzberg, A., van Raalte, H. et al. 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, 5–9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1581-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1581-2