Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Current Urology Reports 3/2012

01-06-2012 | Female Urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)

An Appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration Warning on Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh

Authors: Lindsey C. Menchen, Alan J. Wein, Ariana L. Smith

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Currently, there is no consensus on the use of mesh in transvaginal surgical repairs for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. This review recapitulates and assesses the recent U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings about the use of surgical mesh in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair and summarizes the responses of the national organizations that represent the health care providers most invested in treating patients with transvaginal surgical mesh. Mesh exposure or extrusion through the vaginal wall, true mesh erosion into viscera, and infection are the major complications that are currently used to define the safety of synthetic mesh use. Other potential adverse postsurgical outcomes that can affect quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction include dyspareunia, “hispareunia” (ie, complaints of a sexual partner), prosthetic contraction or prominence, vaginal shortening, pelvic pain, urinary dysfunction, and failure of the repair. These outcomes are frequently attributed to mesh use, and can result in expense, frustration, and the need for further medical and surgical interventions for patients undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Information regarding the FDA’s reports on the use of surgical mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair should be made available to patients at the time of surgical planning and should be used as an adjunct in the process of obtaining informed consent.
Literature
2.
go back to reference •• 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) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:2–12. This article defines and standardizes terminology for reporting complications related to transvaginal mesh placement.PubMedCrossRef •• 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) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:2–12. This article defines and standardizes terminology for reporting complications related to transvaginal mesh placement.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Goldman H, FitzGerald MP. Opposing views transvaginal mesh for cystocele repair. J Urol. 2010;183:430–2.PubMedCrossRef Goldman H, FitzGerald MP. Opposing views transvaginal mesh for cystocele repair. J Urol. 2010;183:430–2.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference van Raalte H, Lucente V, Molden S, Haff R, Murphy M. One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the prolift procedure for treatment of posthysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:694.e1–6.CrossRef van Raalte H, Lucente V, Molden S, Haff R, Murphy M. One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the prolift procedure for treatment of posthysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:694.e1–6.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chen CCG, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MFR. Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50:383–411.PubMedCrossRef Chen CCG, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MFR. Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50:383–411.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Young S, Schaffer J, Lucero M. Society of gynecologic surgeons’ survey: mesh use in vaginal prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16:336–9.PubMedCrossRef Young S, Schaffer J, Lucero M. Society of gynecologic surgeons’ survey: mesh use in vaginal prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16:336–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Freeman RM, Lose G. The great mesh debate. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:889–91.CrossRef Freeman RM, Lose G. The great mesh debate. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:889–91.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1413–31.PubMedCrossRef Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1413–31.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gomelsky A, Penson DF, Dmochowski RR. Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs. Br J Urol. 2011;107:1704–19.CrossRef Gomelsky A, Penson DF, Dmochowski RR. Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs. Br J Urol. 2011;107:1704–19.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference • Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36. This randomized controlled trial compared transvaginal mesh kit for anterior prolapse repair to traditional colporrhaphy. At 1 year, a significantly higher composite subjective and objective success rate was reported with mesh kit repair, although adverse events also were increased with the use of mesh.PubMedCrossRef • Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1826–36. This randomized controlled trial compared transvaginal mesh kit for anterior prolapse repair to traditional colporrhaphy. At 1 year, a significantly higher composite subjective and objective success rate was reported with mesh kit repair, although adverse events also were increased with the use of mesh.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jacquetin B, Cosson M. Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:893–6.CrossRef Jacquetin B, Cosson M. Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:893–6.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:789–98.PubMedCrossRef Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:789–98.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference American Urogynecologic Society. American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) response: FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.augs.org/p/cm/ld/fid=163 (2011). Accessed 31 December 2011. American Urogynecologic Society. American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) response: FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://​www.​augs.​org/​p/​cm/​ld/​fid=​163 (2011). Accessed 31 December 2011.
19.
go back to reference Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, McAchran SE, Goldman HB, et al. Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:703–e1.PubMedCrossRef Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, McAchran SE, Goldman HB, et al. Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:703–e1.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lee U. Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12:62–7.PubMedCrossRef Lee U. Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12:62–7.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Culligan PJ, Littman PM, Salamon CG, Priestley JL, Shariati A. Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:506.e1–6.CrossRef Culligan PJ, Littman PM, Salamon CG, Priestley JL, Shariati A. Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:506.e1–6.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Dietz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL. Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:173–e1.PubMedCrossRef Dietz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL. Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:173–e1.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Aboushwareb T, Mckenzie P, Wezel F, Southgate J, Badlani G, Salem W, et al. Is tissue engineering and biomaterials the future for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction (LUTD)/Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP)? Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;782:775–82.CrossRef Aboushwareb T, Mckenzie P, Wezel F, Southgate J, Badlani G, Salem W, et al. Is tissue engineering and biomaterials the future for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction (LUTD)/Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP)? Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;782:775–82.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C, Phelps JY. Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:103.e1–4.CrossRef Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C, Phelps JY. Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:103.e1–4.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An Appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration Warning on Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh
Authors
Lindsey C. Menchen
Alan J. Wein
Ariana L. Smith
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0244-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Current Urology Reports 3/2012 Go to the issue

Endourology (V Bird, Section Editor)

Stone Management for the Patient on Anticoagulation

Female Urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)

Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Historical Perspective