The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study
- 729 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The objective was to report patterns of sling and transvaginal mesh-related complications using the IUGA/ICS classification of prosthesis-related complications.
This was a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of sling, transvaginal mesh, and sacrocolpopexy for mesh-related complications from 2011 to 2013 at three tertiary referral centers. The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) classification system was utilized.
We identified 445 patients with mesh complications, 506 pieces of synthetic mesh were removed, and 587 prostheses-related complications were classified. 3.7 % of patients had viscus organ penetration or vaginal exposure as their presenting chief complaint and 59.7 % were classified as not having any vaginal epithelial separation or category 1. The most common category was spontaneous pain (1Be: 32.5 %) followed by dyspareunia (1Bc: 14.7 %). The sling group was 20 % more likely to have pain compared with the pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh group (OR 1.2, 95 % CI 0.8–1.6). The most commonly affected site (S2) was away from the suture line (49 %). Compared with the sling group, the POP group had a higher rate of mesh exposure, which mostly occurred at the suture line area. The majority of patients presented with mesh-related complications more than 1 year post-insertion (T4; average 3.68 ± 2.47 years).
Surgeons should be aware that patients with vaginal mesh complications routinely exhibit complications more than 1 year after the implantation with pain as the most common presenting symptom.
KeywordMesh complication IUGA/ICS classification Sling complication Transvaginal mesh Mesh removal Mesh complication classification
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 5.Administration UFaD (2011) FDA Public Health Notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 13 January 2015
- 6.Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MF, Barber MD, McAchran SE, Goldman HB, Jelovsek JE (2008) Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):703.e701–703.e707. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Barski D, Otto T, Gerullis H (2014) Systematic Review and Classification of Complications after Anterior, Posterior, Apical, and Total Vaginal Mesh Implantation for Prolapse Repair. Surg Technol Int XXIVGoogle Scholar
- 11.Haylen B, Freeman R, Swift S, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, Dwyer P, Fatton B, Kocjancic E, Lee J, Maher C, Petri E, Rizk D, Sand P, Schaer G, Webb R (2011) 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) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22(1):3–15. doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Firoozi F, Ingber MS, Moore CK, Vasavada SP, Rackley RR, Goldman HB (2012) Purely transvaginal/perineal management of complications from commercial prolapse kits using a new prostheses/grafts complication classification system. J Urol 187(5):1674–1679. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.066 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar