Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of Current Synthetic Mesh Materials in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

  • Female Urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With increasing use of synthetic material in pelvic organ prolapse repair, the reporting and incidence of associated complications also have increased. The role of synthetic mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair remains controversial and it is a therapeutic dilemma whether to continue its use in patients with poor native tissues, despite the recent public safety notification provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In this article, we review the biomaterials used in pelvic organ prolapse repair and discuss the outcomes and associated complications, paying emphasis to the benefits and the risks.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1160–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, Spino C, Whitehead WE, Wu J, Brody DJ, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300:1311–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Interim Projections by age, sex, race, and hispanic origin:2000–2050. Available at: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/. Accessed January 2011.

  5. Gomelsky A, Penson DF, Dmochowski RR. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs. BJU Int. 2011;107:1704–19. ** (Extensive overview of current treatment and evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR. Biocompatibility assessment of synthetic sling materials for female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2007;178:1171–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petros PE. Vault prolapse II: restoration of dynamic vaginal supports by infracoccygeal sacropexy, an axial day-case vaginal procedure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:296–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Silva WA, Karram MM. Scientific basis for use of grafts during vaginal reconstructive procedures. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:519–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jakus SM, Shapiro A, Hall CD. Biologic and synthetic graft use in pelvic surgery: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63:253–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brun JL, Bordenave L, Lefebvre F, Bareille R, Barbié C, Rouais F, Baquey CH. Physical and biological characteristics of the main biomaterials used in pelvic surgery. Biomed Mater Eng. 1992;2:203–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M, Spelzini F, Claerhout F, Steensma A, Ozog Y, De Ridder D. The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:S16–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elmer C, Blomgren B, Falconer C, Zhang A, Altman D. Histological inflammatory response to transvaginal polypropylene mesh for pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Urol. 2009;181:1189–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chu CC, Welch L. Characterization of morphologic and mechanical properties of surgical mesh fabrics. J Biomed Mater Res. 1985;19:903–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Iglesia CB, Fenner DE, Brubaker L. The use of mesh in gynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1997;8:105–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim YN, Muller R, Corstiaans A, Hitchins S, Barry C, Rane A. A long-term review of posterior colporrhaphy with vypro 2 mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1053–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;CD004014.

  17. Guerette NL, Peterson TV, Aguirre OA, Vandrie DM, Biller DH, Davila GW. Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:59–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. •• Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36. This is a randomized controlled study comparing outcomes of mesh use and standard pelvic organ prolapse repair.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, Goldberg R. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1357–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1762–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H, Cornish A. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 116:1380–6.

  23. Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Werbrouck E, Coremans G, Claerhout F. Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol. 2009;182:2362–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ, Steptoe MM, Culligan PJ. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:137–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elmér C, Altman D, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Väyrynen T, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:117–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Aungst MJ, Friedman EB, von Pechmann WS, Horbach NS, Welgoss JA. De novo stress incontinence and pelvic muscle symptoms after transvaginal mesh repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van Raalte HM, Lucente VR, Molden SM, Haff R, Murphy M. One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the Prolift procedure for treatment of posthysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:694.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I, West of Scotland Study Group. Retrospective multicentre study of the new minimally invasive mesh repair devices for pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG. 2008;115:22–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Balakrishnan S, Lim YN, Barry C, Corstians A, Kannan K, Rane A. Prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the Apogee system for treatment of vault prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28:618–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Moore RD, Miklos JR. Vaginal repair of cystocele with anterior wall mesh via transobturator route: efficacy and complications with up to 3-year follow-up. Adv Urol. 2009;743831.

  31. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:242–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:455–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR. Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:1610–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gauruder-Burmester A, Koutouzidou P, Rohne J, Gronewold M, Tunn R. Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1059–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Butrick CW. Do guns kill people or…? the mesh dilemma. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:133–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. The Haute Autorite’ de Sante’ (HAS). Available at: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/synthese_implant_prolapse_voie_vaginale.pdf. Accessed January 2011.

  38. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Available at http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed March 2012.

  39. Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V, Pelvic Surgeons Network. 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. 2012;23:5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Barber MD, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Amundsen CL, Bump RC. Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1402–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

P. Kanagarajah: none; R. Ayyathurai: none. Dr. Christopher Gomez has received travel expense compensation from Advanced Medical Education Consultants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bladder Health and Reconstructive Urology Institute, Miramar, FL, USA

    Prashanth Kanagarajah

  2. Department of Urology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, PO Box 016960 (M-814), Miami, FL, 33101, USA

    Rajinikanth Ayyathurai & Christopher Gomez

Authors
  1. Prashanth Kanagarajah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajinikanth Ayyathurai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Gomez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kanagarajah, P., Ayyathurai, R. & Gomez, C. Evaluation of Current Synthetic Mesh Materials in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair. Curr Urol Rep 13, 240–246 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0247-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0247-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation