Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vaginally Placed Meshes: A Review of Their Complications, Risk Factors, and Management

  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse (A Shobeiri, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the aging population, the number of women who will undergo surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is increasing dramatically. Pelvic reconstructive surgeries for genital prolapse have been shown significant improvement in quality of life and prolapse-related symptoms. With improving the surgical techniques and introducing synthetic mesh, more women undergo repairs of POP recently. However, with the increasing use of mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there has been an increase in the number of patients seeking care for mesh-related complications. There has been a recent surge in the literature regarding the use of vaginally placed mesh for pelvic floor disorders largely due to the widely publicized complications associated with its use. The aim of this study is to review the current literature on mesh complications in POP treatment, with specific emphasis on vaginally-placed mesh for POP.

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. Olsen AL et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Whiteside JL et al. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith FJ et al. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Margulies RU et al. Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):678 e1-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maher C et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;30(4), CD004014.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Update on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. FDA Saf Commun. 2011.

  7. Miles Murphy, 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. 2012;23:5–9. Highly important paper regarding surgeons’ evidence based perspective on FDA update.

  8. Reclassification of Surgical Mesh for Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair and Surgical Instrumentation for Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Procedures; Designation of Special Controls for Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Instrumentation. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Thursday, May 1, 2014;79(84):24634–42. Most updated announcement on mesh complications by FDA, Highly important.

  9. Firoozi F, Goldman H. Transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder after mesh placement using a prolapse kit: a novel technique. Urology. 2010;75(1):203–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. American Urogynecologic Society. Position Statement on Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders. 2013. Surgical aspect limitation on POP treatment, Important.

  11. Halylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, Dwyer PL, Fatton B, Kocjancic E, Lee J, Maher C, Rizk DE, Petri E, Sand PK, Schaer GN, Webb R. 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) & Grafts in Female Pelvic Floor Surgery. 2010.

  12. Altman D et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Withagen MI et al. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):242–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vollebregt A et al. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;118(12):1518–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sergent F et al. Transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse by the transobturator-infracoccygeal hammock technique: long-term anatomical and functional outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(3):384–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maher CM et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1445–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C. Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Abed H et al. 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(7):789–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rardin CR, Washington BB. New considerations in the use of vaginal mesh for prolapse repair. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:360–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Brubaker L, Glazener C, Jacquentin B, Maher C, Melgrem A, Norton P, et al. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. 4th International Consultation on Incontinence. Paris, France. Surgery for pelvic Organ Prolapse, Jul 5–9. 2008;1273–320.

  21. Freeman RM et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J S C Med Assoc. 2011;24(3):377–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cundiff GW et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):688.e1-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shah HN, Badlani GH. Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: a systematic review. Indian J Urol: IJU: J Urol Soc India. 2012;28(2):129–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaufman Y et al. Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):307–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gabriel B et al. Prolapse surgery in women of 80 years and older using the Prolift technique. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(12):1463–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ghezzi F et al. Surgical treatment for pelvic floor disorders in women 75 years or older: a single-center experience. Menopause (New York, NY). 2011;18(3):314–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan YL et al. Comparison of outcomes after vaginal reconstruction surgery between elderly and younger women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):348–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee JK, Agnew G, Dwyer PL. Mesh-related chronic infections in silicone-coated polyester suburethral slings. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(1):29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yamada BS et al. High rate of vaginal erosions associated with the mentor ObTape. J Urol. 2006;176(2):651–4. discussion 654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mettu JR, Colaco M, Badlani GH. Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(4):370–4. Mesh surgery outcome based on recent evidence, Highly important.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ganj FA et al. Complications of transvaginal monofilament polypropylene mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(8):919–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Skoczylas LC et al. Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(1):119–25. Mesh complication management, Highly important.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cornu JN, Peyrat L, Haab F. Update in management of vaginal mesh erosion. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(5):471–5. Mesh complication management update, Important.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Davila G, Jijon A. Managing vaginal mesh exposure/erosions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24(5):343–8. Comprehensive mesh complications review, Highly important.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee D, Bacsu C, Zimmern PE. Meshology: a fast-growing field involving mesh and/or tape removal procedures and their outcomes. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014:1–16. Medical device complication, important.

  36. Gyang AN et al. Managing chronic pelvic pain following reconstructive pelvic surgery with transvaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(3):313–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sentilhes L et al. Sexual function in women before and after transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(6):763–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Karabulut A, Demitas O, Gok S. A late complication of transobturator tape procedure: Vaginocutaneous fistula formation with vaginal mesh erosion. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):559–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feiner B, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115((2 Pt 1)):325–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fatton B et al. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(7):743–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Giamberardino MA et al. Myofascial pain syndromes and their evaluation. Best practice & research. Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(2):185–98.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Karateke A, Cam C, Ayaz R. Unilateral hydroureteronephrosis after a mesh procedure. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(2):232–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Huffaker RK, Shull BL, Thomas JS. A serious complication following placement of posterior Prolift. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(11):1383–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. O'Sullivan OE et al. Novel endoscopic management of a late complication following TVT insertion for stress urinary incontinence. Am J Case Rep. 2013;14:459–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Handa VL et al. Perioperative complications of surgery for genital prolapse: does concomitant antiincontinence surgery increase complications? Urology. 2005;65:483–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Falagas ME et al. Mesh-related infections after pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134(2):147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Weidner AC et al. Sacral osteomyelitis: an unusual complication of abdominal sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:689–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Pouya Javadian and Dena O’Leary declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 920 Stanton L. Young Boulevard, WP2410, P.O. Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK, 73190, USA

    Pouya Javadian & Dena O’Leary

Authors
  1. Pouya Javadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dena O’Leary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dena O’Leary.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Javadian, P., O’Leary, D. Vaginally Placed Meshes: A Review of Their Complications, Risk Factors, and Management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 4, 96–101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-015-0118-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-015-0118-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation