Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration Warning on Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh

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

Abstract

Currently, there is no consensus on the use of mesh in transvaginal surgical repairs for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. This review recapitulates and assesses the recent U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings about the use of surgical mesh in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair and summarizes the responses of the national organizations that represent the health care providers most invested in treating patients with transvaginal surgical mesh. Mesh exposure or extrusion through the vaginal wall, true mesh erosion into viscera, and infection are the major complications that are currently used to define the safety of synthetic mesh use. Other potential adverse postsurgical outcomes that can affect quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction include dyspareunia, “hispareunia” (ie, complaints of a sexual partner), prosthetic contraction or prominence, vaginal shortening, pelvic pain, urinary dysfunction, and failure of the repair. These outcomes are frequently attributed to mesh use, and can result in expense, frustration, and the need for further medical and surgical interventions for patients undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Information regarding the FDA’s reports on the use of surgical mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair should be made available to patients at the time of surgical planning and should be used as an adjunct in the process of obtaining informed consent.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. • Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM262760.pdf (2011). Accessed 2 January 2012. All surgeons who implant surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse are encouraged to read the original FDA communications.

  2. •• Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:2–12. This article defines and standardizes terminology for reporting complications related to transvaginal mesh placement.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Food and Drug Administration. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm (2008). Accessed 2 January 2012. All surgeons who implant surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse are encouraged to read the original FDA communications.

  4. Goldman H, FitzGerald MP. Opposing views transvaginal mesh for cystocele repair. J Urol. 2010;183:430–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van Raalte H, Lucente V, Molden S, 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.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen CCG, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MFR. Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50:383–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Young S, Schaffer J, Lucero M. Society of gynecologic surgeons’ survey: mesh use in vaginal prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16:336–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman RM, Lose G. The great mesh debate. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:889–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1413–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gomelsky A, Penson DF, Dmochowski RR. Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs. Br J Urol. 2011;107:1704–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. • Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36. This randomized controlled trial compared transvaginal mesh kit for anterior prolapse repair to traditional colporrhaphy. At 1 year, a significantly higher composite subjective and objective success rate was reported with mesh kit repair, although adverse events also were increased with the use of mesh.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacquetin B, Cosson M. Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:893–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Drug Administration. FDA perspective on surgical mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse ( POP ) FDA Overview—POP. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/UCM271283.pdf (2011). Accessed 2 January 2012.

  14. Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:789–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American Urogynecologic Society. American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) response: FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.augs.org/p/cm/ld/fid=163 (2011). Accessed 31 December 2011.

  16. National Association for Continence. NAFC’s position statement for vaginal mesh for pelvic surgery. http://www.nafc.org/about/advocacy-efforts/nafc-s-position-statement-for-vaginal-mesh (2011). Accessed 31 December 2011.

  17. Society for Urodynamics and Female Urology. Society for Urodynamics and Female Urology (SUFU) response: FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (July 2011). http://www.sufuorg.com/pdf/SUFU%20FDA%20response%207%2018%2011.pdf (2011). Accessed 31 December 2011.

  18. American Urological Association (Board of Directors). AUA position statement on the use of vaginal mesh for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.auanet.org/content/aua-policies/position-statements/pelvic-organ-prolapse.cfm (2011). Accessed 31 December 2012.

  19. Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, McAchran SE, Goldman HB, et al. Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:703–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee U. Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12:62–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Culligan PJ, Littman PM, Salamon CG, Priestley JL, Shariati A. Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:506.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dietz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL. Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:173–e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aboushwareb T, Mckenzie P, Wezel F, Southgate J, Badlani G, Salem W, et al. Is tissue engineering and biomaterials the future for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction (LUTD)/Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP)? Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;782:775–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C, Phelps JY. Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:103.e1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

L. C. Menchen: none. Dr. Alan J. Wein has served as a consultant for Pfizer, Astellas, Allergan, Medtronic, and Uroplasty. A. L. Smith: none.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, 3rd Floor West Pavilion, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Lindsey C. Menchen, Alan J. Wein & Ariana L. Smith

Authors
  1. Lindsey C. Menchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan J. Wein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ariana L. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsey C. Menchen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Menchen, L.C., Wein, A.J. & Smith, A.L. An Appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration Warning on Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh. Curr Urol Rep 13, 231–239 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0244-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0244-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation