Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Sacrocolpopexy is considered mainstay treatment for apical or vaginal vault prolapse and is currently most often performed via a minimally invasive approach. Although mesh-related complications after this procedure are uncommon, mesh exposure can have an important impact on the patient’s quality of life. Our objective is to perform a literature review on this complication post laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Methods

Web of Science and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2021. We retrieved 272 articles of which 83 ultimately were withheld.

Results

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) implies a low risk of mesh exposure, which is currently estimated at 3.5%. Literature however is marked by substantial methodological heterogeneity. Controversy remains in the debate over prevention of mesh exposure after MISC. Performing a concomitant total hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk compared to subtotal hysterectomy or hysteropexy. Treatment of mesh exposure is challenging as guidelines are lacking. Although supported by few prospective data, patients with asymptomatic mesh exposure are managed conservatively. Surgical intervention, preferentially performed by an experienced pelvic surgeon, is indicated in symptomatic patients.

Conclusions

Mesh exposure is often undiagnosed and remains untreated. There is a gap in evidence exploring risk factors for mesh-related complications and efficient measures for reducing them. Choosing the best treatment option is still difficult. Management should be individualized and optimized at the time of diagnosis. Lack of acknowledgement and experience can result in increased morbidity.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

POP:

pelvic organ prolapse

MISC:

minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy

POP-Q:

Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification

References

  1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):CD012376. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, Phillips C, Deprest J, O'Reilly B, But I, Moore R, Jeffery S, Haddad JM, Deval B. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive literature review on current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V, Wang R, van Montfoort APA, Mol BWJ, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1767–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, 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;22:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J (2016) Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2):CD012079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012079.

  6. Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, Smith AR, Reid F, Hagen S, Montgomery I, Kilonzo M, Boyers D, McDonald A, McPherson G, MacLennan G, Norrie J (2017) PROSPECT study group). 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 389(10067):381-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3.

  7. US Food and Drug Administration. Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: FDA safety communication. July, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm

  8. Bergersen A, Hinkel C, Funk J, Twiss CO. Management of vaginal mesh exposure: a systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2019;17(1):40–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2019.1589787.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kisby CK, Linder BJ. Management of vaginal mesh exposures following female pelvic reconstructive surgery. Curr Urol Rep. 2020;21(12):57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01002-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(4):679–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Myers EM, Siff L, Osmundsen B, Geller E, Matthews CA. Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(4):585–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2551-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Matthews CA, Geller EJ, Henley BR, Kenton K, Myers EM, Dieter AA, Parnell B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Mueller MG, Wu JM. Permanent compared with absorbable suture for vaginal mesh fixation during total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(2):355–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003884.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tagliaferri V, Ruggieri S, Taccaliti C, Gentile C, Didonna T, D'asta M, Legge F, Guida P, Scambia G, Guido M (2020) Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 24. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13997.

  14. Culligan PJ, Lewis C, Priestley J, Mushonga N. Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight Y-mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(3):202–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dwyer L, Kumakech W, Ward K, Reid F, Smith A. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) using an ultra-lightweight polypropylene mesh. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019;2:100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. van Zanten F, van Iersel JJ, Paulides TJC, Verheijen PM, Broeders IAMJ, Consten ECJ, Lenters E, Schraffordt Koops SE. Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(7):1423–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas TN, Davidson ERW, Lampert EJ, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1763–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04291-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li YL, Chang YW, Yang TH, Wu LY, Chuang FC, Kung FT, Huang KH. Mesh-related complications in single-incision transvaginal mesh (TVM) and laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (LASC). Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2019.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Zanten F, van Iersel JJ, Hartog FE, Aalders KIM, Lenters E, Broeders IAMJ, Schraffordt Koops SE. Mesh exposure after robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery: a prospective cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;26(4):636–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.06.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zebede S, Dawood A, Alarab M, Drutz H, Lovatsis D. A streamlined surgical approach to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38(5):446–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orhan A, Ozerkan K, Vuruskan H, Ocakoglu G, Kasapoglu I, Koşan B, Uncu G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):623–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03858-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, Ferrante KL, Dyer KY, Kirby AC, Menefee SA. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, De Rienzo G, Bini V, Costantini E. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for high-stage pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective, randomized, single-center study. Urology. 2019;34:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gupta P, Ehlert M, Bartley J, Gilleran J, Killinger KA, Boura JA, Nagaraju P, Fischer M. Perioperative outcomes, complications, and efficacy of robotic-assisted prolapse repair: a single institution study of 196 patients. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(6):408–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000472.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. El Hamamsy D, Fayyad AM. New onset stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and its relation to anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1041–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2641-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vieillefosse S, Thubert T, Dache A, Hermieu JF, Deffieux X. Satisfaction, quality of life and lumbar pain following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: suture vs. tackers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;187:51–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, Porena M. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen Y, Hua K. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;137(2):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Linder BJ, Chow GK, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urol. 2015;22(12):1155–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12900.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Linder BJ, Anand M, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(1):13–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Campagna G, Pedone Anchora L, Panico G, Caramazza D, Arcieri M, Cervigni M, Scambia G, Ercoli A. Titanized polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(4):763–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04146-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L (2020) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 222(4):358.e1-358.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048.

  35. Nightingale G, Phillips C. Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(4):871–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04374-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pacquée S, Nawapun K, Claerhout F, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Dʼhoore A, Wyndaele J, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Long-term assessment of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):323–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Giugale LE, Hansbarger MM, Askew AL, Visco AG, Shepherd JP, Bradley MS. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6.

  39. Kemp MM, Slim K, Rabischong B, Bourdel N, Canis M, Botchorishvili R. Transrectal mesh erosion requiring bowel resection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):717–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Moulder JK, Cohen SL, Morse AN, Einarsson JI. Mesh extrusion through the internal cervical os: an unusual complication following laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(5):309–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318292eb6d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mickelson L, Miklos JR, Moore RD. Laparoscopic repair of enterocervical fistula after mesh erosion into the sigmoid colon and cervix after robotic supracervical hysterectomy and sacrocervicopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(1):e3–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shah HN, Badlani GH. Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: a systematic review. Indian J Urol. 2012;28(2):129–53. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.98453.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bedford ND, Seman EI, O'Shea RT, Keirse MJ. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.10.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1241–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3257-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kupelian AS, Vashisht A, Sambandan N, Cutner A. Laparoscopic wrap round mesh sacrohysteropexy for the management of apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1889–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3054-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1687–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):139–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;17(1):62–6813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rahmanou P, White B, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, Geoffrion R, Sokol AI, Karram M, Cundiff GW, Blomquist JL, Barber MD (2017) Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 216(1):38.e1-38.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035.

  51. Warembourg S, Labaki M, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Fatton B. Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1139–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3256-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Izett-Kay ML, Aldabeeb D, Kupelian AS, Cartwright R, Cutner AS, Jackson S, Price N, Vashisht A. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(12):2595–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanverdi İ, Kılıççı Ç, Polat M, Özkaya E, Kılıç SG, Dizdar M, Karateke A. A new operation technique for uterine prolapse: vaginally-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;14(3):181–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. de Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1859–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2177-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Warner WB, Vora S, Hurtado EA, Welgoss JA, Horbach NS, von Pechmann WS. Effect of operative technique on mesh exposure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):113–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318249bd54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Osmundsen BC, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman MA, Edwards R, Gregory WT. Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):86–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318246806d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, Rumolo V, Caramazza D, Lombisani A, Rossitto C, Gadonneix P, Scambia G, Ercoli A. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04865-0.

  58. Li PC, Ding DC. Outcomes of laparoscopic hysteropexy and supracervical hysterectomy plus cervicopexy: a retrospective study. Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2019;32(3):262–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_131_19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, Espuña M, Parellada M, Genís D, Balasch J, Carmona F. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(7):654–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF. Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(2):188–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2007.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB, Shepherd JP. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):401–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04017-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Berger AA, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA (2020) Anchor vs suture for the attachment of vaginal mesh in a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 223(2):258.e1-258.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.018

  63. Nolfi AL, Brown BN, Liang R, Palcsey SL, Bonidie MJ, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA (2016) Host response to synthetic mesh in women with mesh complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 215(2):206.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.008.

  64. Orenstein SB, Saberski ER, Kreutzer DL, Novitsky YW. Comparative analysis of histopathologic effects of synthetic meshes based on material, weight, and pore size in mice. J Surg Res. 2012;176(2):423–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, Schaffer J, Brown MB, Brubaker L; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (2008) Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 199(6):688.e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.029

  66. Askew AL, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Truong T, Siddiqui NY, Bradley MS. Does mesh weight affect time to failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(9):536–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 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 

  68. Feola A, Barone W, Moalli P, Abramowitch S. Characterizing the ex vivo textile and structural properties of synthetic prolapse mesh products. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(4):559–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1901-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Sindhwani N, Liaquat Z, Urbankova I, Vande Velde G, Feola A, Deprest J. Immediate postoperative changes in synthetic meshes—in vivo measurements. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015;55:228–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.10.015.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Endo M, Feola A, Sindhwani N, Manodoro S, Vlacil J, Engels AC, Claus F, Deprest JA. Mesh contraction: in vivo documentation of changes in apparent surface area utilizing meshes visible on magnetic resonance imaging in the rabbit abdominal wall model. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(6):737–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2293-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sindhwani N, Callewaert G, Deprest T, Housmans S, Van Beckevoort D, Deprest J. Short term post-operative morphing of sacrocolpopexy mesh measured by magnetic resonance imaging. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;80:269–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.02.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Eisenberg VH, Steinberg M, Weiner Z, Alcalay M, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Schiff E, Lowenstein L. Three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound for imaging mesh implants following sacrocolpopexy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):459–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Eisenberg VH, Steinberg M, Weiner Z, Schiff E, Lowenstein L. Long-term follow-up of sacrocolpopexy mesh implants at two time intervals at least 1 year apart using 4D transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(3):398–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15891.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tennyson L, Rytel M, Palcsey S, Meyn L, Liang R, Moalli P (2019) Characterization of the T-cell response to polypropylene mesh in women with complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 220(2):187.e1-187.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.121.

  75. Committee Opinion No. 694. Management of mesh and graft complications in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):e102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wong KS, Nguyen JN, White T, Menefee SA, Walter AJ, Krulewitch CJ, Anderson-Smits CT, Jakus-Waldman SM. Adverse events associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgeries that use implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1239–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Hart SR, Weiser EB. Abdominal sacral colpopexy mesh erosion resulting in a sinus tract formation and sacral abscess. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(5 Pt 2):1037–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000121829.55491.0d.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Taylor GB, Moore RD, Miklos JR. Osteomyelitis secondary to sacral colpopexy mesh erosion requiring laminectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(2 Pt 2):475–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000187949.87223.06.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Grimes CL, Tan-Kim J, Garfin SR. Nager CW (2012) sacral colpopexy followed by refractory Candida albicans osteomyelitis and discitis requiring extensive spinal surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;120(2 Pt 2):464–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256989e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, Jallad K, Mishra K, Karram MM, Iglesia CB, Rardin CR, Barber MD (2014) Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 210(2):163.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.012.

  81. Arsene E, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Rubod C, Cosson M. Sacral colpopexy: long-term mesh complications requiring reoperation(s). Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):353–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2514-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Fagan MJ, Cundiff GW. Partial colpocleisis for the treatment of sacrocolpopexy mesh erosions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;9(2):261–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0416-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sassani JC, Ross JH, Lopa S, Handzel RM, Bradley MS, Bonidie M. Prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy mesh removal: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(2):92–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000816.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. South MM, Foster RT, Webster GD, Weidner AC, Amundsen CL (2007) Surgical excision of eroded mesh after prior abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 197(6):615.e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.012.

  85. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Schachar JS, Matthews CA (2020) Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature. Transl Androl Urol. 9(2):959-970. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.10.02.

  87. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, Fine P, Menefee S, Ridgeway B, Visco A, Warren LK, Zhang M, Meikle S. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4919.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Balk EM, Murphy M, Grimes CL, Sleemi A, Singh R, Dieter AA, Crisp CC, Rahn DD (2018) Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 219(2):129-146.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.

  89. Ko KJ, Lee KS. Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60(6):413–24. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium

    Stephanie Deblaere, Jan Hauspy & Karen Hansen

  2. Women’s Clinic, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Stephanie Deblaere

Authors
  1. Stephanie Deblaere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Hauspy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Stephanie Deblaere: selection of relevant literature, manuscript writing/editing.

Jan Hauspy: selection of relevant literature, manuscript editing.

Karen Hansen: manuscript editing.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Deblaere.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this literature review.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deblaere, S., Hauspy, J. & Hansen, K. Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J 33, 2713–2725 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04998-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04998-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation