Skip to main content

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

International Urogynecology Journal volume 24, pages 749–758 (2013)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

PP:

Conventional nonabsorbable mesh

PA:

Partially absorbable mesh

FDA:

US Food and Drug Administration

ICS:

International Continence Society

References

  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):1160–1166

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):795–806

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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 364:1826–1836

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 26:53–58

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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 110:455–462

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1611–1616

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. den Hartog D, Dur AH, Tuinebreijer WE, Kreis RW (2008) Open surgical procedures for incisional hernias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006438

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):242–250

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore RD, Miklos JR (2009) Vaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, friend or foe: a comprehensive review. ScientificWorldJournal 9:163–189

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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]

  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]

  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):772–780

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):307–313

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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]

  16. Dwyer PL (2006) Evolution of biological and synthetic grafts in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(Suppl 1):S10–S15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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]

  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 175:10–17

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Baessler K, O’Neill S, Maher C, Battistutta D (2004) A validated female pelvic floor questionnaire for clinicians and researchers. Neurourol Urodyn 23:398–399

    Google Scholar 

  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]

  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):1099–1108

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):599–604

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 14:239–243

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):S111

    Google Scholar 

  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 19:1677–1681

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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 19:397–400

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 19:375–380

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 31:1165–1169

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baessler K (2012) Do we need meshes in pelvic floor reconstruction? World J Urol 30:479–486

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ostergard DR (2012) Evidence-based medicine for polypropylene mesh use compared with native tissue vaginal prolapse repair. Urology 79(1):12–14

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    J. Farthmann & B. Gabriel

  2. Evangelisches Diakoniekrankenhaus Freiburg, Wirthstr. 11, 79110, Freiburg, Germany

    D. Watermann

  3. Kreiskrankenhaus Preetz, Am Krankenhaus 5, 24211, Preetz, Germany

    A. Niesel

  4. Klinikum Tettnang, Emil-Münch-Straße 16, 88069, Tettnang, Germany

    C. Fünfgeld

  5. Klinikum Fulda, Frauenklinik, Pacelliallee 4, 36043, Fulda, Germany

    A. Kraus

  6. Krankenhaus Hetzelstift, Stiftstraße 10, 67434, Neustadt, Germany

    F. Lenz

  7. Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Frauenklinik, Steinweg 13-17, 26122, Oldenburg, Germany

    H. J. Augenstein

  8. Office of Clinical Studies, University Hospital, Elsässer Str. 2, 79110, Freiburg, Germany

    E. Graf

Authors
  1. J. Farthmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Watermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Niesel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Fünfgeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Lenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. J. Augenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Graf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. B. Gabriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Farthmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farthmann, J., Watermann, D., Niesel, A. et al. Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J 24, 749–758 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2

Keywords

  • Mesh exposure
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Cystocele
  • Polypropylene mesh