Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1401–1411 | Cite as

Clinical application of 2D and 3D pelvic floor ultrasound of mid-urethral slings and vaginal wall mesh

  • Annika Taithongchai
  • Abdul H. Sultan
  • Pawel A. Wieczorek
  • Ranee ThakarEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This mini-review demonstrates the clinical application of pelvic floor ultrasound for imaging women with mesh following incontinence and prolapse surgical procedures.

Methods

The images are obtained using two-dimensional (2D) perineal pelvic floor ultrasound (pPFUS) and three-dimensional (3D) endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS).

Results

2D pPFUS and 3D EVUS provide confirmation of the presence or absence of vaginal wall mesh (VWM), bulking agents, and the type of mid-urethral sling (MUS). Residual mesh following excision can be located, and presence in the bladder/urethra may be demonstrated. These are crucial for surgical planning and counselling, with the potential to be useful intraoperatively also. The shape and position relative to urethral length and lumen can be assessed, which may correspond with voiding dysfunction or recurrent incontinence. Evidence of inflammation/sepsis or folding of the VWM may be useful in the investigation of pain.

Conclusions

Pelvic floor ultrasound is the standard of care where imaging is available and utilised and is the only modality capable of reliably visualising mesh. It is clear that there are significant benefits and uses for the clinician for investigating complications of VWM or MUS; although many of the findings may be associated with clinical symptoms, some are incidental findings. Therefore, these scans should be performed by pelvic floor specialists with core competency in pelvic floor ultrasound and interpreted by those familiar with their significance, as an adjunct to patient history, examination and other investigations to assist in the most appropriate management plan for the patient. In addition, there is still a need for standardisation in terminology and measurement techniques, to allow for consistent and comparable reporting.

Keywords

Complications Mesh Mid-urethral sling Pelvic floor ultrasonography Pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence Transobturator tape Tension-free vaginal tape 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Financial disclaimer/conflicts of interest

Miss Thakar is president of the International Urogynecological Association. All other authors claim that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Paraiso MR, Walters MD, Karram MM, Barber MD. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension versus tension-free vaginal tape: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(6):1249–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaivas JG, Purohit RS, Benedon MS, Mekel G, Stern M, Billah M, Ougbade K, Bendavid R, Lakovlev V (2015) Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery. Nat Rev Urol;2(9):481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Duckett J, El-Hamamsy D, Dolan L, et al. Long-term rate of mesh sling removal following Midurethral mesh sling insertion among women with stress urinary incontinence. JAMA. 2018;320(16):1659–69.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keltie K, Elneil S, Monga A, Patrick H, Powell J, Campbell B, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8-year study of 92,246 women. Nature. 2017;17:12015.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11821-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FDA, Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: July 2011. Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760. Accessed 3 August 2018.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Manonai J, Rostaminia G, Denson L, Shobeiri SA. Clinical and ultrasonographic study of patients presenting with transvaginal mesh complications. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(3):407–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khatri G, Carmel M, Bailey A, Foreman M, Brewington C, Zimmern P, et al. Postoperative imaging after surgical repair for pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2016;36(4):1233–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schuettoff SA, Beyersdorff D, Gauruder-Burmester A, Tunn R. Visibility of the polypropylene tape after tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure in women with stress urinary incontinence: comparison of introital ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in vitro and in vivo. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:687–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz H, Barry C, Lim Y, Rane A. 2D and 3D pelvic floor ultrasound in the evaluation of suburethral sling implants. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24:253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin KL, Ys J, Lo TS, Liu CM, Tsai EM, Long CY. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic assessment of compression effect on urethra following tension-free vaginal tape and transobturator tape procedures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:452–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tunn R, Picot A, Marschke J, Gauruder-Burmester A. Sonomorphological evaluation of polypropylene mesh implants after vaginal mesh repair in women with cystocele or rectocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:449–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kociszewski J, Kolben S, Barski D, Viereck V, Barcz E. Complications following tension-free vaginal tapes: accurate diagnosis and complications management. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:538391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Dietz HP, Mellgrans A, Sultan AH, Shobeiri SA, et al. State of the art: an integrated approach to pelvic floor ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:381–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    AIUM/IUGA. Practice parameter for the performance of urogynecological ultrasound examinations: developed in collaboration with the ACR, the AUGS, the AUA, and the SRU. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(4):851–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Staack A, Vitale J, Ragavendra N, Rodriguez LV. Translabial ultrasonography for evaluation of synthetic mesh in the vagina. Urology. 2014;83(1):68–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Denson L, Shobeiri SA. Three-dimensional endovaginal sonography of synthetic implanted materials in the female pelvic floor. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33:521–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wong V, Guzman-Rojas R, Shek KL, Chou D, Moore KH, Dietz HP. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:404–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mukati MS, Shobeiri SA. Transvaginal sling release with intraoperative ultrasound guidance. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(3):184–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dietz HP, Mourtisen L, Ellis G, Wilson PD. How important is TVT location? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:904–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kociszewski J, Rautenberg O, Kolben S, Eberhard J, Hilgers R, Viereck V. Tape functionality: position, change in shape, and outcome after TVT procedure—mid-term results. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:795–800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dresler MM, Kociszewski J, Wlazlak E, Pedraszewski P, Trzeciak A, Surkont G. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements of the suburethral tape location obtained in pelvic floor ultrasound performed with a transvaginal probe. J Ultrasound. 2017;17:101–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bogusiewicz M, Monist M, Stankiewicz A, Wozniak M, Wieczorek AP, Rechberger T. Most of the patients with suburethral sling failures have tapes located outside the high-pressure zone of the urethra. Ginekol Pol. 2013;84:334–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng CC, Lee LC, Han WH. Use of three-dimensional ultrasound scan to assess the clinical importance of midurethral placement of the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for treatment of incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(3):220–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kociszewski J, Rautenberg O, Perucchini D, Eberhard J, Geissbuhler V, Hilgers R, et al. Tape functionality: sonographic tape characteristics and outcome after TVT incontinence surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27:485–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dietz HP, Mouritsen L, Ellis G, Wilson PD. Does the TVT stay where you put it? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:950–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larson K, Scott L, Cunningham TD, Zhao Y, Abuhamad A, Takacs P. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound findings in women with high-pressure voiding after midurethral sling placement. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(2):141–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD. The ‘iris effect’: how two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound can help understand anti-incontinence procedures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:267–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chantarasorn V, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Sonographic appearance of transobturator slings: implications for function and dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(4):493–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shek KL, Dietz HP. Imaging of slings and meshes. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2014;17(2):61–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hegde A, Nogueiras M, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Dynamic assessment of sling function on transperineal ultrasound: does it correlate with outcome 1 year following surgery? Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(6):857–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dietz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL. Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:173.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Majkusiak W, Pomian A, Tomasik P, Horosz E, Zwierzchowska A, Kociszewski J, et al. Does the suburethral sling change its location? Int J Urol. 2017;24:848–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wlazlak E, Kluz T, Wrobel A, Krzycka M, Surkont G. The effectiveness of a pre-pubic four-arm MAZCA-TC mesh in treating cystocele and stress urinary incontinence simultaneously—results controlled with a pelvic floor ultrasound. A preliminary study. Ginekol Pol. 2017;88(11):579–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lo TS, Tan YL, Cortes EFM, Lin YH, Wu PY, Pue LB. Influence of anterior vaginal mesh with concomitant mid-urethral sling surgery on stress urinary incontinence: clinical and sonographic outcome. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55:593–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rogowski A, Bienkowski P, Tosiak A, Jerzak M, Mierzejewski P, Baranowski W. Mesh retraction correlates with vaginal pain and overactive bladder symptoms after anterior vaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:2087–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, Dwyer PL, Fatton B, Kocjancic E, Lee J, Maher C, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN, Webb R; International Urogynecological Association; International Continence Society; Joint IUGA/ICS Working Group on Complications Terminology. 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. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Caquant F, Collinet P, Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Garbin O, Rosenthal C, et al. Safety of trans vaginal mesh procedure: retrospective study of 684 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008;34(4):449–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dietz HP. Mesh in prolapse surgery: an imaging perspective. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40:495–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bogusiewicz M. Ultrasound imaging in urogynaecology—state of the art 2016. Menopause Rev. 2016;15(3):123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bako A, Dhar R. Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:103–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chan L, Tse V. Pelvic floor ultrasound in the diagnosis of sling complications. World J Urol. 2018;36:753–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P, Pavlikova M. Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation—evidence of mesh contraction or folding? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:529–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ostergard DR. Polypropylene vaginal mesh grafts in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(4):962–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chughtai B, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, Eilber KS, Anger JT, Clemens JQ. Is vaginal mesh a stimulus of autoimmune disease? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):495e1–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Javadian P, Quiroz LH, Shobeiri SA. In vivo ultrasound characteristics of vaginal mesh kit complications. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(2):162–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Taithongchai
    • 1
  • Abdul H. Sultan
    • 1
  • Pawel A. Wieczorek
    • 2
  • Ranee Thakar
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and UrogynecologyCroydon University HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMedical University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations