International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 1379–1386 | Cite as

Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of the study was to compare extrusion (vaginal mesh exposure) rates in patients undergoing transvaginal prolapse repair with the trocar-based Apogee and/or Perigee devices (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) using either the original type I polypropylene mesh (IntePro, American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) or a newer generation lightweight type I mesh (IntePro Lite, American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA).

Methods

Data were pooled from three similarly designed prospective multicenter studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of Perigee for correction of the anterior (AC) and/or Apogee to repair the posterior/apical (PC/A) compartments. The first two studies utilized IntePro (mesh density 50 g/m2) and the third utilized IntePro Lite (mesh density 25.2 g/m2). Data were pooled to form IntePro and IntePro Lite groups for comparison. Patient demographics were recorded. Risk factors for vaginal mesh exposure were also considered.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-three patients were implanted with Perigee and/or Apogee with IntePro for a total of 371 heavier mesh implants (174 Perigee, 197 Apogee) compared to 86 patients who underwent Perigee and/or Apogee with IntePro Lite for a total of 116 lightweight mesh implants (60 Perigee, 56 Apogee). Demographics and potential risk factors for extrusion were compared between the two groups. Mean follow-up was 2.0 years and similar between the two groups. In the AC, there were 234 implants, with mesh extrusion occurring in 8.0 % following IntePro compared to 5.0 % following IntePro Lite (p = 0.57). In the PA/C, there were 253 implants, with mesh extrusion occurring in 13.7 % following IntePro compared to 7.1 % following IntePro Lite (p = 0.25). Overall mesh extrusion rates in 487 implants in all compartments were found to be 11.1 % with IntePro versus 6.0 % with IntePro Lite with an estimated odds ratio of 1.93 (95 % confidence interval 0.84–4.44, p = 0.12).

Conclusions

No statistically significant difference in extrusion rates were seen following use of IntePro versus IntePro Lite; however, the 46 % reduction in rate of mesh exposure observed in those receiving the lighter weight mesh may represent clinical importance.

Keywords

Perigee Apogee Extrusion Pelvic organ prolapse Mesh complications Vaginal mesh 

Abbreviations

AC

Anterior compartment

PC/A

Posterior compartment/apex

POP

Pelvic organ prolapse

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

POP-Q

Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System

QOL

Quality of life

OR

Operating room

IP

IntePro

IPL

IntePro Lite

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the investigators for each of the studies reported in this manuscript as follows:

For the PERIGEE Study: Robert D. Moore (P.I.), Roger D. Beyer, Gopal H. Badlani, Karny Jacoby, Enrique G. Jacome, Sheldon J. Freedman, Michael T. Gambla, and Kurt A. McCammon.

For the PROPEL Study: James C. Lukban (P.I.), Ty B. Erickson, Moises A. Virelles, Seth J. Herbst, Manish Patel, Douglas M. Van Drie, Stuart A. Weprin, James Flaherty, Samuel Zylstra, Roger D. Beyer, Robert D. Moore, Robert W. Vera, John N. Nguyen, and Marc A. Hodroff.

Conflicts of interest

Funding for this clinical study was provided by American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS). R.D. Moore has served as consultant, speaker, and preceptor for AMS. J.C. Lukban has served as consultant, preceptor, facilitator, and speaker for AMS; consultant and speaker for Novasys; and consultant for Coloplast.

References

  1. 1.
    Beer M, Kuhn A (2005) Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 119:144–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304, discussion 1304–1306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J (2004) Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg 240:578–583; discussion 583–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amid PK, Lichtenstein IL (1997) Current assessment of Lichtenstein tension-free hernia repair. Chirurg 68:959–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cosson M, Debodinance P, Boukerrou M et al (2003) Mechanical properties of synthetic implants used in the repair of prolapse and urinary incontinence in women: which is the ideal material? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:169–178, discussion 178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boulanger L, Boukerrou M, Lambaudie E et al (2006) Tissue integration and tolerance to meshes used in gynecologic surgery: an experimental study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 125:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Moore RD, Miklos JR (2009) Vaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, friend or foe: a comprehensive review. ScientificWorldJournal 9:163–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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(3):235.e1–235.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM et al (2008) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 27(1):3–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CMA (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014. doi:  10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub4
  16. 16.
    Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE et al (2008) Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:678e1–678e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MF et al (2008) Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:703e1–703e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AL, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Pt 1):293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore R, Miklos J (2009) Vaginal repair of cystocele with anterior wall mesh via transobturator route: efficacy and complications with up to 3-year followup. Adv Urol 2009:743831Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gauruder-Burmester A, Koutouzidou P, Rohne J et al (2007) Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:1059–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altman D, Falconer C (2007) Perioperative morbidity using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol 109(2 Pt 1):303–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF (2008) Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(2):188–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Miklos JR (2012) Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J 23(1):85–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atlanta Urogynecology AssociatesAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Division of UrogynecologyEastern Virginia Medical SchoolNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations