, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1-2
Date: 16 Nov 2011

The mesh debate

This is an excerpt from the content

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a second warning to medical practitioners and patients on “Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse” in July 2011. Following this, on the advice of legal advisors the research and ethics committee of one of our hospitals (P.L.D) recommended that no further synthetic mesh be used for any incontinence or prolapse surgery. This recommendation was a case of “throwing the baby out with the bath water” and was not ratified following further discussion. However, it is an indication of the perfect storm referred to by Brubaker and Shull in this issue of the International Urogynecology Journal [1]. In order to give a range of opinions we are also publishing in this issue the views of other well-known gynaecologists on the usage of synthetic grafts [2, 3].

So how did we get to this? Polypropylene synthetic mesh has been used in urogynaecology since the 1960s to treat stress incontinence [4