Advertisement

Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 201–205 | Cite as

Management of Mesh-Related Pelvic Inflammation

  • Cristina J. Palmer
  • Gamal GhoniemEmail author
Inflammatory/Infectious Bladder Disorders (MS Mourad, Section Editor)
  • 27 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Inflammatory/Infectious Bladder Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review mesh used for transvaginal surgeries, specifically slings and prolapse repairs, as well as offer a review of management after mesh-induced inflammation occurs.

Recent Findings

There have been changes to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh, with continued high-profile press. The inflammatory changes and possible complications vary with different mesh characteristics. Risk for complications due to transvaginal mesh placed for prolapse is higher than that when placed for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

Summary

Transvaginal mesh aids in the effective treatment of female stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse but holds the possibility for complications. Placement of transvaginal mesh should continue in the hands of specially trained surgeons, who are knowledgeable regarding management of complications.

Keywords

Transvaginal mesh Inflammation Pelvic organ prolapse Stress urinary incontinence 

Notes

Compliance With Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors 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.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Bryans FE. Marlex gauze hammock sling operation with Cooper's ligament attachment in the management of recurrent urinary stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;133(3):292–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ridley JH. Appraisal of the Goebell-Frangenheim-Stoeckel sling procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;95(5):714–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Reclassification of Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Instrumentation Food and Drug Administrtion Executive Summary. www.fda.gov/.../medicaldevicesadvisorycommittee/gastroenterology-urologydevicespanel/ucm487224.pdf.
  5. 5.
    • Zhu L, Schuster P, Klinge U. Mesh implants: an overview of crucial mesh parameters. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7(10):226–36 An overview of ideal mesh characteristics. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cevasco M, Itani KM. Ventral hernia repair with synthetic, composite, and biologic mesh: characteristics, indications, and infection profile. Surg Infect. 2012;13(4):209–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winters JC, Fitzgerald MP, Barber MD. The use of synthetic mesh in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. BJU Int. 2006;98(Suppl 1):70–6 discussion 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Owens DC, Winters JC. Pubovaginal sling using Duraderm graft: intermediate follow-up and patient satisfaction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23(2):115–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ford AA, Rogerson L, Cody JD, Aluko P, Ogah JA. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD006375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amid P. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia. 1997;1:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cervigni M, Natale F. The use of synthetics in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2001;11(4):429–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karlovsky ME, Thakre AA, Rastinehad A, Kushner L, Badlani GH. Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstruction. Urology. 2005;66(3):469–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Julian TM. The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1472–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Debodinance P, Cosson M, Burlet G. Tolerance of synthetic tissues in touch with vaginal scars: review to the point of 287 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;87(1):23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Earle DB, Mark LA. Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am. 2008;88(1):179–201 x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vaz M, Krebs RK, Trindade EN, Trindade MR. Fibroplasia after polypropylene mesh implantation for abdominal wall hernia repair in rats. Acta Cir Bras. 2009;24(1):19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Majercik S, Tsikitis V, Iannitti DA. Strength of tissue attachment to mesh after ventral hernia repair with synthetic composite mesh in a porcine model. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(11):1671–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wood AJ, Cozad MJ, Grant DA, Ostdiek AM, Bachman SL, Grant SA. Materials characterization and histological analysis of explanted polypropylene, PTFE, and PET hernia meshes from an individual patient. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(4):1113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kersey J. The gauze hammock sling operation in the treatment of stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90(10):945–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Wang C, Christie AL, Zimmern PE. Synthetic mid-urethral sling complications: evolution of presenting symptoms over time. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018. An overview of complications after synthetic mid urethral sling placement.;37:1937–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, Alperin M, Moalli P, Gregory WT, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8 A study looking at mesh trends after the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nambiar A, Cody JD, Jeffery ST, Aluko P. Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD008709.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Novara G, Artibani W, Barber MD, Chapple CR, Costantini E, Ficarra V, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on colposuspensions, pubovaginal slings, and midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2010;58(2):218–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92 Prospective study looking at mesh, graft vs native repair for treatment of prolapse. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jeffery S, Roovers JP. Quo vadis, vaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1073–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonsson Funk M, Edenfield AL, Pate V, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Wu JM. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):79 e71–7.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Nordic transvaginal mesh G: anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gomes CM, Carvalho FL, Bellucci CHS, Hemerly TS, Baracat F, de Bessa J Jr, et al. Update on complications of synthetic suburethral slings. Int Braz J Urol. 2017;43(5):822–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Nolfi AL, Brown BN, Liang R, Palcsey SL, Bonidie MJ, Abramowitch SD, et al. Host response to synthetic mesh in women with mesh complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2):206 e201–8 A review of inflammatory response in women who have had mesh complications. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hou JC, Alhalabi F, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Outcome of transvaginal mesh and tape removed for pain only. J Urol. 2014;192(3):856–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Linder BJ, Trabuco EC, Carranza DA, Gebhart JB, Klingele CJ, Occhino JA. Evaluation of the local carcinogenic potential of mesh used in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1333–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    FDA Public Health Notification. Serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reynolds WS, Gold KP, Ni S, Kaufman MR, Dmochowski RR, Penson DF. Immediate effects of the initial FDA notification on the use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery in medicare beneficiaries. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32(4):330–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang LC, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu JC, Laudano MA, Davison WL, Schulster ML, et al. Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare database. Urology. 2015;86(5):885–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ghoniem G, Hammett J. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(10):1489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, IrvineOrangeUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations