Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 749–758 | Cite as

Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial

  • J. Farthmann
  • D. Watermann
  • A. Niesel
  • C. Fünfgeld
  • A. Kraus
  • F. Lenz
  • H. J. Augenstein
  • E. Graf
  • B. Gabriel
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic meshes has become common. Among possible complications, mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment.

Methods

A total of 200 patients with POP > stage I were randomized either to a conventional or a partially absorbable mesh. Exposure rates were observed after 3, 12, and 36 months and correlated to mesh material, patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and treatment centers. Furthermore, management of mesh exposure, satisfaction with surgery, and postoperative pain were evaluated.

Results

At all follow-up intervals mesh exposure rate was smaller in the group of the partially absorbable mesh (3 months PP 11.3 % vs PA 3.2 %, p = 0.0492; 12 months 6.6 % vs 6.3 %; 36 months 7.5 % vs 3.4 %). Over the course of time, mesh exposure was observed in 27 patients, with surgical intervention necessary in 11 patients. The rate of recurrent POP was higher (p > 0.05) in patients with the partially absorbable mesh. The majority of patients were fully satisfied with the operation (52.8 %) and had no pelvic floor pain (67.5 %).

Conclusion

In this prospective, randomized trial with a long-term follow-up there was a low exposure rate in both treatment groups with a trend toward fewer exposures in the group of the partially absorbable mesh.

Keywords

Mesh exposure Pelvic organ prolapse Cystocele Polypropylene mesh 

Abbreviations

POP

Pelvic organ prolapse

PP

Conventional nonabsorbable mesh

PA

Partially absorbable mesh

FDA

US Food and Drug Administration

ICS

International Continence Society

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The study was sponsored by Serag Wiessner KG, Naila, Germany. J. Farthmann: consultant for pfm medical; honoraria and travel expenses from Serag Wiessner, Johnson & Johnson, AMI. D. Watermann: travel expenses from Serag Wiessner, AMS and Johnson & Johnson, acceptance of payment for research from Serag Wiessner, consultant for Serag Wiessner, AMS, Johnson & Johnson. A. Niesel: honoraria from Serag Wiessner, BARD, AMS, AMI; consultant for Serag Wiessner, BARD, AMI. C. Fünfgeld: consultant and honoraria from Serag Wiessner, BARD, AMS, AMI, pfm medical, Astellas, Merckle. A. Kraus: honoraria from Serag Wiessner. A. Lenz: honoraria from Serag Wiessner. H. J. Augenstein: consultant for Serag Wiessner. E. Graf: none. B. Gabriel: travel expenses and payment for research from Serag Wiessner.

References

  1. 1.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(6):1160–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):795–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amrute KV, Eisenberg ER, Rastinehad AR, Kushner L, Badlani GH (2007) Analysis of outcomes of single polypropylene mesh in total pelvic floor reconstruction. Neurourol Urodyn 26:53–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(12):1611–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE, Kreis RW (2008) Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006438Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moore RD, Miklos JR (2009) Vaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, friend or foe: a comprehensive review. ScientificWorldJournal 9:163–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skoczylas LC, Shepherd JP, Smith KJ, Lowder JL (2012) Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J Jun 30. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deffieux X, Thubert T, de Tayrac R, Fernandez H, Letouzey V (2012) Long-term follow-up of persistent vaginal polypropylene mesh exposure for transvaginally placed mesh procedures. Int Urogynecol J Apr 18. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Araco F, Gravante G, Sorge R et al (2009) The influence of BMI, smoking, and age on vaginal erosions after synthetic mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapses. A multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(7):772–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaufman Y, Singh SS, Alturki H, Lam A (2011) Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J 22(3):307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold KP, Ward RM, Zimmerman CW et al (2012) Factors associated with exposure of transvaginally placed polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dwyer PL (2006) Evolution of biological and synthetic grafts in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(Suppl 1):S10–S15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FDA Safety Communication (2011) Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Available via http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm
  18. 18.
    Moore RD, Lukban JC (2012) Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J May 10. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baessler K, O’Neill S, Maher C, Battistutta D (2004) A validated female pelvic floor questionnaire for clinicians and researchers. Neurourol Urodyn 23:398–399Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozog Y, Mazza E, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2012) Biomechanical effects of polyglecaprone fibers in a polypropylene mesh after abdominal and rectovaginal implantation in a rabbit. Int Urogynecol J Apr 19. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ozog Y, Konstantinovic ML, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Edoardo M, Deprest J (2011) Shrinkage and biomechanical evaluation of lightweight synthetics in a rabbit model for primary fascial repair. Int Urogynecol J 22(9):1099–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siniscalchi R, Palma P, Riccetto C, Maciel LC, Ens G, del Fabbro I (2011) Biomechanical effects of the inclusion of holes to facilitate the integration in monofilament polypropylene meshes: an experimental study. Actas Urol Esp 35(10):599–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dietz HP, Vancaillie P, Svehla M, Walsh W, Steensma AB, Vancaillie TG (2003) Mechanical properties of urogynecologic implant materials. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:239–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neumeyer J, Abdul-Wahab W, Beer M, Speethman J, Groneberg D, Große-Siestrup C (2007) Laboratory testing of suburethral mesh slings: a comparison of their static and dynamic properties. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(Suppl 1):S111Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krause H, Bennet M, Forwood M, Goh J (2008) Biomechanical properties of raw meshes used in pelvic floor reconstruction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1677–1681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boukerrou M, Rubod C, Dedet B, Boodhum R, Nayama M, Cosson M (2008) Tissue resistance of the tension-free procedure: what about healing? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:397–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Afonso JS, Martins PALS, Girao MJBC, Natal Jorge RM, Ferreira AJM, Mascarenhas T et al (2008) Mechanical properties of polypropylene mesh used in pelvic floor repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:375–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elmér C, Falconer C, Hallin A, Larsson G, Ek M, Altman D, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2012) Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 31:1165–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baessler K (2012) Do we need meshes in pelvic floor reconstruction? World J Urol 30:479–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ostergard DR (2012) Evidence-based medicine for polypropylene mesh use compared with native tissue vaginal prolapse repair. Urology 79(1):12–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Farthmann
    • 1
  • D. Watermann
    • 2
  • A. Niesel
    • 3
  • C. Fünfgeld
    • 4
  • A. Kraus
    • 5
  • F. Lenz
    • 6
  • H. J. Augenstein
    • 7
  • E. Graf
    • 8
  • B. Gabriel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyUniversity HospitalsFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Evangelisches Diakoniekrankenhaus FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Kreiskrankenhaus PreetzPreetzGermany
  4. 4.Klinikum TettnangTettnangGermany
  5. 5.Klinikum FuldaFrauenklinikFuldaGermany
  6. 6.Krankenhaus HetzelstiftNeustadtGermany
  7. 7.Evangelisches KrankenhausFrauenklinikOldenburgGermany
  8. 8.Office of Clinical StudiesUniversity HospitalFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations