Advertisement

Surgical Considerations for Vaginal Mesh Complications

  • Farzeen Firoozi
  • Howard B. Goldman
Chapter

Abstract

Vaginal mesh complications have been in the FPMRS zeitgeist from the last 10 years. Pelvic surgeons have had to address this controversy head on over the last decade. When considering the higher rate of complications related to the use of synthetic mesh for vaginal prolapse, there have been two main schools of thought. The first school of thought subscribes to the general belief that synthetic mesh placed inside the vagina is prone to causing pain and extrusion/erosion. The other camp believes that the lion’s share of issues related to synthetic mesh lies squarely on the shoulders of poor surgical technique at the hands of improperly trained or inexperienced surgeons. Irrespective of which group one may identify with at this point, synthetic mesh used in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does require special consideration. In this chapter, we will review techniques for avoiding complications, recognizing technical issues intraoperatively, and managing complications postoperatively.

Keywords

Incontinence Vaginal prolapse Vaginal mesh Erosion Complication 

References

  1. 1.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;CD004014. Review.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 30;11:CD004014. Review.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulmsten U, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;29:75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:891–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S Food and Drug Administration. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. 20 Oct 2008. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111190506/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 15 Sep 2017.
  7. 7.
    Goldman HB, Fitzgerald MP. Transvaginal mesh for cystocele repair. J Urol. 2010;183:430–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. 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) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(1):3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    The International Continence Society. ICS-IUGA complication calculator. https://www.ics.org/complication. Accessed 15 Sept 2017.
  10. 10.
    Firoozi F, Ingber MS, Moore CK, Vasavada SP, Rackley RR, Goldman HB. Purely transvaginal/perineal management of complications from commercial prolapse kits using a new prostheses/grafts complication classification system. J Urol. 2012;187(5):1674–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, Northwell HealthLake SuccessUSA
  2. 2.Zucker/Northwell School of Medicine of Hofstra UniversityHempsteadUSA
  3. 3.Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations