Current Urology Reports

, 12:323

Transvaginal Mesh for Prolapse Repair: What is All the Controversy About?

Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

The use of synthetic mesh for the management of pelvic organ prolapse has been embroiled in a contentious debate over the past decade, with only more partisanship among physicians strictly against its use versus those pelvic surgeons who believe it to be a useful tool in their armamentarium. At the heart of the controversy lies the concern, by its detractors, for complications related to mesh use outweighing the as yet not rigorously tested benefit of augmenting repairs with mesh. This article discusses, in detail, the current literature supporting the use of mesh in the management of pelvic organ prolapse repair. The rising concern for complications, both simple and complex, will be addressed. This review aims to narrow the divide between physicians and to address their discordant beliefs by objectively reporting the most up-to-date data on biologic and synthetic mesh use in pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Pelvic reconstructive surgery Mesh Women’s health Female urology Anterior vaginal wall prolapse Posterior vaginal wall prolapse Apical vaginal prolapse Dyspareunia Voiding dysfunction 

References

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

  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(4):CD004014. This is a very important updated meta-analysis of all the current literature regarding management of pelvic organ prolapse. It serves as a useful tool to objectively assess all reported outcomes data from pelvic organ prolapse studies. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, et al. Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol. 2007;177:192–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C, et al. A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia lata for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1649–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Ridder D, Claehout F, Verleyen P, Boulanger S, Deprest J. Porcine dermis xenograft as reinforcement for cystocele stage III repair: a proscpective randomized controlled trial. (Abstract). Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:435–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, et al. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1357–62. discussion 1362–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1299–304. discussion 1304–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;175:1472–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, et al. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:455–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:891–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36. This represents a very recent randomized control trial comparing anterior colporrhaphy with or without mesh. It is a good example of the direction studies need to be headed to elucidate the role of mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, et al. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1762–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanses TV, Shahryarinejad A, Molden S, et al. Anatomic outcomes of vaginal mesh procedure (Prolift) compared with uterosacral ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:519.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–360.e7. This study represents a well-designed randomized controlled trial that furthers the understanding of the role of mesh repairs in managing pelvic organ prolapse. The findings are informative and will help better shape the debate on transvaginal mesh repairs. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, et al. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:367–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldman HB, Fitzgerald MP. Transvaginal mesh for cystocele repair. J Urol. 2010;183:430–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Firoozi F, Goldman HB. Transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder after mesh placement using a prolapse kit: a novel technique. Urology. 2010;75:203–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Pelvic Health and Reconstructive Surgery, The Arthur Smith Institute for UrologyHofstra North Shore-Long Island Jewish School of MedicineNew Hyde ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations