Mesh Excision: Is Total Mesh Excision Necessary?

Nearly 29 % of women will undergo a secondary, repeat operation for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptom recurrence following a primary repair, as reported by Abbott et al. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:163.e1–163.e1, 2014). In efforts to decrease the rates of failure, graft materials have been utilized to augment transvaginal repairs. Following the success of using polypropylene mesh (PPM) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the use of PPM in the transvaginal repair of POP increased. However, in recent years, significant concerns have been raised about the safety of PPM mesh. Complications, some specific to mesh, such as exposures, erosion, dyspareunia, and pelvic pain, have been reported with increased frequency. In the current literature, there is not substantive evidence to suggest that PPM has intrinsic properties that warrant total mesh removal in the absence of complications. There are a number of complications that can occur after transvaginal mesh placement that do warrant surgical intervention after failure of conservative therapy. In aggregate, there are no high-quality controlled studies that clearly demonstrate that total mesh removal is consistently more likely to achieve pain reduction. In the cases of obstruction and erosion, it seems clear that definitive removal of the offending mesh is associated with resolution of symptoms in the majority of cases and reasonable practice. There are a number of complications that can occur with removal of mesh, and patients should be informed of this as they formulate a choice of treatment. We will review these considerations as we examine the clinical question of whether total versus partial removal of mesh is necessary for the resolution of complications following transvaginal mesh placement.