Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of the study was to reveal the way we treat vaginal mesh complications in a trained referral center.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of transvaginal mesh for mesh-related complications during a 5-year period.

Results

Eighty-three patients underwent 104 operations including 61 complete mesh removal, 14 partial excision, 15 section of sub-urethral sling, and five laparoscopies. Main indications were erosion, infection, granuloma, incomplete voiding, and pain. Fifty-eight removals occurred more than 2 years after the primary mesh placement. Mean operation time was 21 min, and there were two intraoperative and ten minor postoperative complications. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) recurred in 38% and cystocele in 19% of patients.

Conclusions

In a trained center, mesh removal was found to be a quick and safe procedure. Mesh-related complications may frequently occur more than 2 years after the primary operation. Recurrence was mostly associated with SUI and less with genital 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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SUI:

Stress urinary incontinence

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

TVT:

Tension-free vaginal tape

IVS:

Intravaginal sling

TOT:

Trans-obturator tape

UTI:

Urinary tract infection

POP-Q:

Pelvic organ prolapse quantification

References

  1. Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:743–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nauth MA, Fünfgeld C (2008) Correction of cystocele and stress incontinence with anterior transobturator mesh. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 136:249–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rane A, Kannan K, Barry C, Balakrishnan S, Lim Y, Corstiaans A (2008) Prospective study of the Perigee system for the management of cystocoeles—medium-term follow up. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 48:427–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Caquant F, Collinet P, Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Garbin O, Rosenthal C et al (2008) Safety of trans vaginal mesh procedure: retrospective study of 684 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 34:449–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:467–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M (2006) Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mistrangelo E, Mancuso S, Nadalini C, Lijoi D, Costantini S (2007) Rising use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery: a review of the risk of vaginal erosion. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:564–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bako A, Dhar R (2009) Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MF, Barber MD, McAchran SE, Goldman HB et al (2008) Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(703):e1–e7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, Delancey JO (2008) Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(678):e1–e4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hurtado EA, Appell RA (2009) Management of complications arising from transvaginal mesh kit procedures: a tertiary referral center’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. FDA Public Health Notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Issued October 20, 2008 (H:\Ablation of type\papers\FDA alert.htm)

  14. Julian TM (1996) The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1472–1475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G (1996) An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:81–85. discussion 5–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacquetin B, Cosson M (2009) Current opinion/update: complications of vaginal mesh; our experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:893–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eboue C, Marcus-Braun N, von Theobald P (2009) Cystocele repair by transobturator four arms mesh: monocentric experience of first 123 patients. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct (in press)

  19. Deffieux X, de Tayrac R, Huel C, Bottero J, Gervaise A, Bonnet K et al (2007) Vaginal mesh erosion after transvaginal repair of cystocele using Gynemesh or Gynemesh-Soft in 138 women: a comparative study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:73–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Achtari C, Hiscock R, O'Reilly BA, Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro II) mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gauruder-Burmester A, Koutouzidou P, Rohne J, Gronewold M, Tunn R (2007) Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:1059–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boulanger L, Boukerrou M, Rubod C, Collinet P, Fruchard A, Courcol RJ et al (2008) Bacteriological analysis of meshes removed for complications after surgical management of urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:827–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaupp HA, Matulewicz TJ, Lattimer GL, Kremen JE, Celani VJ (1979) Graft infection or graft reaction? Arch Surg 114:1419–1422

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Birch C, Fynes MM (2002) The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14:527–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Balakrishnan S, Lim YN, Barry C, Corstiaans A, Kannan K, Rane A (2007) Sling distress: a subanalysis of the IVS tapes from the SUSPEND trial. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 47:496–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klinge U, Junge K, Spellerberg B, Piroth C, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2002) Do multifilament alloplastic meshes increase the infection rate? Analysis of the polymeric surface, the bacteria adherence, and the in vivo consequences in a rat model. J Biomed Mater Res 63:765–771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Novara G, Galfano A, Boscolo-Berto R, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Ficarra V et al (2008) Complication rates of tension-free midurethral slings in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing tension-free midurethral tapes to other surgical procedures and different devices. Eur Urol 53:288–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Morey AF, Medendorp AR, Noller MW, Mora RV, Shandera KC, Foley JP et al (2006) Transobturator versus transabdominal mid urethral slings: a multi-institutional comparison of obstructive voiding complications. J Urol 175:1014–1027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology Obstetrics and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Caen, Boulevard Georges Clémenceau, 14033, Caen cedex, France

    Naama Marcus-Braun & Peter von Theobald

Authors
  1. Naama Marcus-Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter von Theobald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter von Theobald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcus-Braun, N., von Theobald, P. Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations. Int Urogynecol J 21, 423–430 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1050-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1050-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation