Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?
- 123 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Due to recent concerns over the use of synthetic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, there has been a renewed interest in the utilization of non-synthetic repairs for pelvic organ prolapse. The purpose of this review is to review the current literature regarding pelvic organ prolapse repairs performed without the utilization of synthetic mesh.
Native tissue repairs provide a durable surgical option for pelvic organ prolapse. Based on recent findings of recently performed randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up, transvaginal native tissue repair continues to play a role in the management of pelvic organ prolapse without the added risk associated with synthetic mesh.
In 2019, the FDA called for manufacturers of synthetic mesh for transvaginal mesh to stop selling and distributing their products in the USA. Native tissue and non-synthetic pelvic organ prolapse repairs provide an efficacious alternative without the added risk inherent to the utilization of transvaginal mesh. A recent, multicenter, randomized clinical trial demonstrated no clear advantage to the utilization of synthetic mesh. Furthermore, transvaginal native tissue repairs have demonstrated good long-term efficacy, particularly when anatomic success is not the sole metric used to define surgical success.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Cystocele Enterocele Rectocele Synthetic mesh Transvaginal mesh Uterosacral ligament suspension Sacrospinous ligament fixation Native tissue prolapse repair
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Ricardo Palmerola and Nirit Rosenblum each declare no potential conflicts 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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 12.Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-Van Leeuwen Y, Dekker JH. Effect of pelvic floor muscle training compared with watchful waiting in older women with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse: randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ. 2014;349:g7378.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):555 e1–5.Google Scholar
- 20.Siff LN, Barber MD. Native tissue prolapse repairs: comparative effectiveness trials. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2016;43(1):69–81.Google Scholar
- 23.Kelly H. Incontinence of urine in women. Urol Cutan Rev. 1913;17:291–3.Google Scholar
- 25.Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters C, Campbell MF, Walsh PC, et al. Campbell-Walsh urology [text]. Available from: ClinicalKey. http://libproxy.tulane.edu:2048/login?url=https://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/bookChapter/3-s2.0-C20121035874. Accessed 2 June 2019
- 40.JC Winters AS, R Krlin. Vaginal and abdominal reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. In: AJ Wein LK, A Partin, C Peters, editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016. p. 1939–86.e6.Google Scholar
- 43.• 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. Provided further high-quality evidence demonstrating no added benefit to utilization of transvaginal mesh. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Unger CA, Walters MD, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Paraiso MF. Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):603 e1–7.Google Scholar
- 58.Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Winger DG, Wang L, Carter-Brooks CM, Shepherd JP. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):116 e1–5.Google Scholar
- 60.•• Katrikh AZ, Ettarh R, Kahn MA. Cadaveric nerve and artery proximity to sacrospinous ligament fixation sutures placed by a suture-capturing device. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1033–8. Provided a detailed description of sacrospinous ligament anatomy and surrounding structures important to surgical anatomy. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 62.Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hare A, Chin K, Phelan JN, Ripperda CM, Corton MM. Inferior gluteal and other nerves associated with sacrospinous ligament: a cadaver study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):646 e1–6.Google Scholar
- 66.Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):365–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 68.•• Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65. Provided long-term results on OPTIMAL trial demonstrating no difference in efficacy between USLS and SSLF. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 73.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.Google Scholar
- 76.Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):557 e1–5.Google Scholar
- 81.Hijazi S, Echtle D, Aboumarzouk OM, Heinrich E. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Pelvicol xenograft and concomitant Burch colposuspension. Int J Women's Health. 2017;9:625–30.Google Scholar
- 88.Haj-Yahya R, Chill HH, Levin G, Reuveni-Salzman A, Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction. J Minim Invasive Gyne col. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.012.
- 89.•• Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Balk EM, Murphy M, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–46 e2. Provided clinical practice guidelines for uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse repairs based on review of clinical trials performed. PubMedGoogle Scholar