Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Commentary to this article was published on 28 March 2020

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

There has been a scarcity of long-term published data comparing lightweight versus heavier weight transvaginal mesh for prolapse repair. The aim was to ascertain the long-term rates of recurrent prolapse and mesh exposure in a cohort of vaginal repairs utilizing two different weights of transvaginal mesh.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected on all mesh-augmented vaginal prolapse repairs performed with Apogee® or Perigee® mesh kits (IntePro® or IntePro Lite®) at a single centre over an 11-year period, with patients receiving ongoing annual follow-up. A sequential stepwise univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify variables that were significantly associated with mesh exposure.

Results

Eighty-eight women with 113 mesh kits were reviewed from the original cohort of 158 women. The median length of follow-up was 6.4 years (range 1.1–12.5 years). Mesh exposure rate per implant in the IntePro® group was 16/40 (40%) versus 4/73 (5.5%) in the IntePro Lite® group (p < 0.0001). A hazard ratio of 4.2 was identified for mesh exposure for IntePro® versus IntePro Lite® (95% CI 3.0–6.8). There was no difference in rates of recurrent prolapse between the heavy- and lightweight mesh groups.

Conclusions

Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh at a median follow-up of 6.4 years, with no difference in rates of recurrent prolapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D. Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):489–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000136100.10818.d8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chow D, Rodriguez LV. Epidemiology and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(4):293–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283619ed0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. FDA News Release 16 April 2019 https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginal.

  7. Karmakar D, Hayward L, Smalldridge J, Lin S. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single centre. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(8):1161–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2658-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Karmakar D HL, Lin S, Smalldridge J (2014) A calculator for risk prediction of mesh extrusion in vaginal mesh augmented repair: a novel translational approach to risk counselling and decision making in urogynaecology. Int Urogynecol J 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2429-3.

  10. Curtiss N, Duckett J. A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy. Gynecol Surg. 2018;15(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1035-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.Cd012079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rane A, Iyer J, Kannan K, Corstiaans A. Prospective study of the perigee system for treatment of cystocele—our five-year experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52(1):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01384.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Glazener CMA, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31596-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Donati M, Brancato G, Grosso G, Li Volti G, La Camera G, Cardi F. Immunological reaction and oxidative stress after light or heavy polypropylene mesh implantation in inguinal hernioplasty: a CONSORT-prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Medicine. 2016;95(24):e3791. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000003791.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Liang R, Abramowitch S, Knight K, Palcsey S, Nolfi A, Feola A. Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG. 2013;120(2):233–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12085.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Feola A, Abramowitch S, Jallah Z, Stein S, Barone W, Palcsey S. Deterioration in biomechanical properties of the vagina following implantation of a high-stiffness prolapse mesh. BJOG. 2013;120(2):224–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12077.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Liang R, Knight K, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA. Exploring the basic science of prolapse meshes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28(5):413–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly EC, Winick-Ng J, Welk B. Surgeon experience and complications of transvaginal prolapse mesh. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000001450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Management of Mesh and Graft Complications in Gynecologic Surgery. Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery 2017;23(3):171–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000425

  20. Lo TS, Tan YL, Cortes EF, Wu PY, Pue LB, Al-Kharabsheh A. Clinical outcomes of mesh exposure/extrusion: presentation, timing and management. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(3):284–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tijdink MM, Vierhout ME, Heesakkers JP, Withagen MI. Surgical management of mesh-related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1395–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1476-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Cundiff GW, Quinlan DJ, van Rensburg JA, Slack M. Foundation for an evidence-informed algorithm for treating pelvic floor mesh complications: a review. Bjog. 2018;125(8):1026–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

    Nicola Dykes & Lynsey Hayward

  2. North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

    Nicola Dykes

  3. Mercy Health, Melbourne, Australia

    Debjyoti Karmakar

Authors
  1. Nicola Dykes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debjyoti Karmakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lynsey Hayward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola Dykes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Previously presented as a Fellows Day Presentation at the IUGA 43nd Annual Meeting, Vienna, Austria, June 2018.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dykes, N., Karmakar, D. & Hayward, L. Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1785–1791 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04270-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04270-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation