Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 3/2012

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

Evaluation of Current Biologic Meshes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

Authors: Ashley Cox, Sender Herschorn

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common disorder estimated to affect 15%–30% of women over the age of 50 years. About 11% of women will require surgery by the age of 80 years and there is an estimated 30% rate of prolapse recurrence. In an attempt to improve surgical outcomes, biologic grafts and synthetic meshes have been implemented in the repair of POP. Biologic grafts have been used with the hope of avoiding complications associated with synthetic mesh. This presents the existing data surrounding the use of biologic grafts in the surgical repair of anterior compartment, vaginal vault, and posterior compartment prolapse.
Literature
1.
Hendrix SL, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Kobashi KC. Evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence and pelvic prolapse. In: A. Wein, et al., editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Elseveir: Baltimore; 2012. p. 1896.
4.
Birch C, Fynes MM. The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14(5):527–35.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Choe JM, Bell T. Genetic material is present in cadaveric dermis and cadaveric fascia lata. J Urol. 2001;166(1):122–4.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Fitzgerald MP, Mollenhauer J, Brubaker L. The antigenicity of fascia lata allografts. BJU Int. 2000;86(7):826–8.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Handa VL, et al. Banked human fascia lata for the suburethral sling procedure: a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(6):1045–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Liscic RM, et al. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in a patient with a lyophilized dura mater graft. Acta Med Croatica. 1999;53(2):93–6.PubMed
9.
Chen CC, Ridgeway B, Paraiso MF. Biologic grafts and synthetic meshes in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(2):383–411.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Taylor GB, et al. Posterior repair with perforated porcine dermal graft. Int Braz J Urol. 2008;34(1):84–8. discussion 89–90.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Jorge-Herrero E, et al. Calcification and identification of metalloproteinases in bovine pericardium after subcutaneous implantation in rats. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12(10–12):1013–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Guerette NL, et al. Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(1):59–65.PubMed
13.
Pierce LM, et al. Biomechanical properties of synthetic and biologic graft materials following long-term implantation in the rabbit abdomen and vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009;200(5):549 e1-8.
14.
Dora CD, et al. Time dependent variations in biomechanical properties of cadaveric fascia, porcine dermis, porcine small intestine submucosa, polypropylene mesh and autologous fascia in the rabbit model: implications for sling surgery. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1970–3.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Dwyer PL, O'Reilly BA. Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG. 2004;111(8):831–6.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Visco AG, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(3):297–302.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Meschia M, et al. Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol. 2007;177(1):192–5.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Ward RM, et al. Vaginal paravaginal repair with an AlloDerm graft: long-term outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197(6):670 e1-5.
19.
Gomelsky A, Rudy DC, Dmochowski RR. Porcine dermis interposition graft for repair of high grade anterior compartment defects with or without concomitant pelvic organ prolapse procedures. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1581–4.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Botros SM, et al. Arcus-anchored acellular dermal graft compared to anterior colporrhaphy for stage II cystoceles and beyond. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(10):1265–71.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Goldstein HB, et al. A multicenter prospective trial evaluating fetal bovine dermal graft (Xenform(R) Matrix) for pelvic reconstructive surgery. BMC Urol. 2010;10:21.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Menefee SA. Vaginal paravaginal repair with porcine dermal reinforcement: correction of advanced anterior vaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1832–6.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Gandhi S, et al. A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia lata for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1649–54.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hviid U, Hviid TV, Rudnicki M. Porcine skin collagen implants for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised prospective controlled study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):529–34.PubMedCrossRef
25.
• Dahlgren E, Kjolhede P. Long-term outcome of porcine skin graft in surgical treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. An open randomized controlled multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90(12):1393–401. This randomized trial failed to show a benefit of cystocele recurrence with the use of Pelvicol™.
26.
• Natale F, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20(1):75–81. This randomized trial found a better success rate with synthetic mesh versus biological graft in terms of recurrence rates. There was a decreased complication rate with biological grafts.
27.
Feldner Jr PC, et al. Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial of SIS graft versus traditional colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1057–63.PubMedCrossRef
28.
• Maher CM, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(11):1445–57. This is a recent metatanalysis on the surgical management of POP.
29.
Ramanah R, et al. Evaluating the porcine dermis graft InteXen in three-compartment transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1151–6.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Culligan PJ, et al. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187(6):1473–80; discussion 1481–2.
31.
Nygaard IE, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.PubMedCrossRef
32.
• Tate SB, et al. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(2):137–43. This study reports the long-term results of the ranomized controlled trial by Culligan et al. [33].
33.
Culligan PJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(1):29–37.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Altman D, et al. Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh. Urology. 2006;67(4):719–24.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Quiroz LH, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198(5):557 e1-5.
36.
Altman D, et al. Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(6):1233–41; discussion 1241–2; author reply 1242.
37.
Nieminen K, et al. Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(10):1636–42.PubMedCrossRef
38.
van Dam JH, et al. Fecal continence after rectocele repair: a prospective study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2000;15(1):54–7.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Richardson AC. The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1993;36(4):976–83.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kohli N, Miklos JR. Dermal graft-augmented rectocele repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(2):146–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Kobashi KC, et al. Initial experience with rectocele repair using nonfrozen cadaveric fascia lata interposition. Urology 2005;66(6):1203–7; discussion 1207–8.
42.
Dell JR, O'Kelley KR. PelviSoft BioMesh augmentation of rectocele repair: the initial clinical experience in 35 patients. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005;16(1):44–7; discussion 47.
43.
Altman D, et al. A three-year prospective assessment of rectocele repair using porcine xenograft. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(1):59–65.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Paraiso MF, et al. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1762–71.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Jia X, et al. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2008;115(11):1350–61.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Abed H, et al. 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(7):789–98.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of Current Biologic Meshes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair
Authors
Ashley Cox
Sender Herschorn
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/s11934-012-0252-2

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

Endourology (V Bird, Section Editor)

Current Status of Salvage Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy for Radiorecurrent Prostate Cancer

Female Urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)

Evaluation of Current Synthetic Mesh Materials in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

Female Urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)

What is the Gold Standard for Posterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse Repair: Mesh or Native Tissue?

Endourology (V Bird, Section Editor)

Current Status of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation and Reconstruction

Female urology (A Gousse, Section Editor)

Anterior Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Synthetic Mesh