Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biologic Grafts for Use in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: a Contemporary Review

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

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition and there is a plethora of surgical techniques available to address this problem. We present a review of biologic grafts, including the latest literature to help guide a surgeon’s choice on the type of biologic materials to augment repairs.

Recent Findings

Since the 2019 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on mesh, including xenograft, there is a sparsity of biologic graft products available for POP repairs. This has led to a significant decrease in surgical application. Surgeons must be familiar with the biochemical properties, processing, and clinical application of biologic grafts prior to use. They should also be familiar with alternative operative techniques that utilize autografts, although there is limited outcome data on these techniques.

Summary

With heightened awareness of mesh and its complications, biologic grafts have made a resurgence. Surgeons must be well versed on their available options. Current literature is limited, and studies have not demonstrated superiority of biologic graft over native tissue repairs for prolapse. Nevertheless, there is a role for these types of biologic graft material in specific patient populations. Future studies are warranted.

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 importance •• Of major importance

  1. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1783–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabel V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu J, Matthews C, Conover M, Pata V, Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. US Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh placement for pelvic organ prolapse. 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/2oHG72C. Accessed 15 Oct 2019.

  6. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.2827.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. • Powers SA, Burleson LK, Hannan JL. Managing female pelvic floor disorders: a medical device review and appraisal. Interface Focus. 2019;9(4):20190014. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0014Review article of medical devices used in pelvic surgery, which includes biologic grafts. There is a focus on biochemical properties.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. US Food and Drug Administration Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel. FDA executive summary on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in the anterior vaginal compartment. 2019. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/122854/download. Accessed 15 Oct 2019

  9. Yurteri-Kaplan LA, Gutman RE. The use of biological materials in urogynecologic reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(5 Suppl 2):242S–53S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826154e4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freytes DO, Badylak SF. Sterilization of biologic scaffold materials. In: Webster JG, editor. Encyclopedia of Medical Devices and Instrumentation. Second ed; 2006. p. 273–82.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Badylak SF, Gilbert TW. Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20(2):109–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Valentin JE, Badylak JS, McCabe GP, Badylak SF. Extracellular matrix bioscaffolds for orthopaedic applications. A comparative histologic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2673–86. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.E.01008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gigliobianco G, Roman Regueros R, Osman NI, Bissoli J, Bullock AJ, Chapple CR, et al. Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: how can we do better? Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:968087–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/968087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Walter AJ, Hentz JG, Magrina JF, Cornella JL. Harvesting autologous fascia lata for pelvic reconstructive surgery: techniques and morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1354–8 discussion 1459.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. • Seth J, Toia B, Ecclestone H, Pakzad M, Maid R, Greenwell T, et al. The autologous rectus fascia sheath sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy, a mesh free alternative in patients with recurrent uterine and vault prolapse: a contemporary series and literature review. Urol Ann. 2019;11(2):193–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_85_18This paper describes use of autologous rectus fascia graft for up to 33 months for apical prolapse. Good review of the literature.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Heft JS, Samimi PA, Panza J, Reynolds WS, Zimmerman C. Postoperative complications in abdominal sacrocolpopexy with rectus fascia autograft versus minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(5 Suppl 1):S129.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heft JS, Slocum P, Braxton E, Zimmerman CW. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with rectus fascia autograft. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(8):1273–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2987-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chaus F, Funk J, Pangilinan J, Lin FC, Twiss CO. Total autologous fascia lata anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse repair: Experience in thirty-three patients. Urology. 2019;S0090–4295(19):31117–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.12.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Alshiek J, Awad C, Welch E, Jalalizadeh M, Shobeiri A. Twelve years’ experience with fascia lata autograft to replace complicated anterior vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1587–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03957-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldstein HB, Maccarone J, Naughton MJ, Aguirre OA, Patel RC. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating fetal bovine dermal graft (Xenform(R) Matrix) for pelvic reconstructive surgery. BMC Urol. 2010;10:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-10-21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Morton R. Boston Scientific Presentation to FDA Advisory Committee. Lecture presented at FDA Advisory Committee Meeting. 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/122869/download. Accessed 15 Oct 2019. Summary presentation of the most recent 12-, 24-, 36-month outcomes of Xenform™ 522 Study, which is the only ongoing biologic graft post-market surveillance study.

  22. •• Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012079Cochrane review of 37 trials with 4023 women, which summarizes the available outcome data for biologic grafts vs. native tissue repairs. However, only 10 studies were included that used biologic graft material.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C, et al. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2008;115(11):1350–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01845.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Min H, Li H, Bingshu L, Yanxiang C, Lu C, Qing S, et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the application of adjuvant material in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(5):919–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2626-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schimpf MO, Abed H, Sanses T, White AB, Loweenstein L, Ward RM, et al. Graft and mesh use in transvaginal prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):81–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. •• Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3RCT of 1348 women, with 735 in the graft trial that found augmentation with graft material did not change short-term outcomes (1–2 years) in prolapse repair.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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(6):1762–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.07.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sung VW, Rardin CR, Raker CA, LaSala CA, Myers DL. Porcine subintestinal submucosal graft augmentation for rectocele repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(1):125–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d407e.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Ulrich D, Edwards SL, Su K, Tan KS, White JF, Ramshaw JA, et al. Human endometrial mesenchymal stem cells modulate the tissue response and mechanical behavior of polyamide mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Tissue Eng Part A. 2014;20(3–4):785–98. https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.TEA.2013.0170.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gargett CE, Gurung S, Darzi S, Wekmeister JA, Mukherjee S. Tissue engineering approaches for treating pelvic organ prolapse using a novel source of stem/stromal cells and new materials. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29(4):450–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000634.27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chrysanthopoulou EL, Pergialiotis V, Perrea D, Κourkoulis S, Verikokos C, Doumouchtsis SK. Platelet rich plasma as a minimally invasive approach to uterine prolapse. Med Hypotheses. 2017;104:97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2017.05.018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Einarsson JI, Jonsdottir K, Mandle R. Use of autologous platelet gel in female pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a feasibility study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:204–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.12.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Atrium Health, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, 2001 Vail Avenue, Charlotte, NC, 28207, USA

    Amanda L. Merriman & Michael J. Kennelly

Authors
  1. Amanda L. Merriman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Kennelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda L. Merriman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Amanda Merriman declares no potential conflicts of interest. Michael Kennelly receives grant/research support from Allergan, Amphora, Axonics, Boston Scientific, Cook Myosite, Coloplast, Dignify Therapeutics, Ipsen, Taris, Uro1, FemPulse, and EBT Medical and is a consultant for Laborie, Avadel, and Urovant.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects 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.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Female Urology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merriman, A.L., Kennelly, M.J. Biologic Grafts for Use in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: a Contemporary Review. Curr Urol Rep 21, 52 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01013-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01013-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation