International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 5–9 | Cite as

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”

  • Miles Murphy
  • Adam Holzberg
  • Heather van Raalte
  • Neeraj Kohli
  • Howard B. Goldman
  • Vincent Lucente
  • on behalf of the Pelvic Surgeons Network
Debate: Transvaginal Mesh for POP -- The Recent FDA Update

Abstract

In July of 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a safety communication entitled “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.” The stated purpose of this communication is to inform health care providers and patients that serious complications with placement of this mesh are not rare and that it is not clear that these repairs are more effective than nonmesh repair. The comments regarding efficacy are based on a systematic review of the scientific literature from 1996–2011 conducted by the FDA. Our review of the literature during this time yields some different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of mesh use in prolapse repair. It may be useful to consider this information prior to making recommendations regarding mesh use in prolapse surgery according to the recent UPDATE.

Keywords

Mesh FDA Transvaginal Prolapse Safety 

Supplementary material

192_2011_1581_MOESM1_ESM.docx (53 kb)
ESM 1DOCX 53 kb

References

  1. 1.
    Barber MD, Visco AG, Weidner AC et al (2000) Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1402–1411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(360):e1-7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery, Brubaker L et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L et al (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 22:789–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB et al (2007) Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:78.e1–78.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Glazener CMA. (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (4): CD004014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1418–1421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lo TS, Wang AC (1998) Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. J Gynecol Surg 14(2):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL et al (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(2):455–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I et al (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele. Int Urogynecol J 19:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 19:1611–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116(10):1380–1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramao SS et al (2010) Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 21:389–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2):293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(235):e1–e8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE et al (2008) Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 112(1):49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deitz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL (2011) Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(173):e1–e4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Berfstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1533–1538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nilsson CG, Palva K, Rezapour M, Falconer C (2008) Eleven years prospective follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 19(8):1043–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miles Murphy
    • 1
  • Adam Holzberg
    • 2
  • Heather van Raalte
    • 3
  • Neeraj Kohli
    • 4
  • Howard B. Goldman
    • 5
  • Vincent Lucente
    • 6
  • on behalf of the Pelvic Surgeons Network
  1. 1.The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgeryNorth WalesUSA
  2. 2.Robert Wood Johnson Medical SchoolCooper University HospitalCamdenUSA
  3. 3.Princeton UrogynecologyUniversity Medical Center at PrincetonPrincetonUSA
  4. 4.New England Center for UrogynecologyNewton-Wellesley Hospital/Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Glickman Urologic and Kidney InstituteThe Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  6. 6.The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive SurgeryAllentownUSA

Personalised recommendations