Top

Published in:

01-01-2012 | Debate: Transvaginal Mesh for POP -- The Recent FDA Update

Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”

Authors: Miles Murphy, Adam Holzberg, Heather van Raalte, Neeraj Kohli, Howard B. Goldman, Vincent Lucente, on behalf of the Pelvic Surgeons Network

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2012

Abstract

In July of 2011 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a safety communication entitled “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.” The stated purpose of this communication is to inform health care providers and patients that serious complications with placement of this mesh are not rare and that it is not clear that these repairs are more effective than nonmesh repair. The comments regarding efficacy are based on a systematic review of the scientific literature from 1996–2011 conducted by the FDA. Our review of the literature during this time yields some different conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of mesh use in prolapse repair. It may be useful to consider this information prior to making recommendations regarding mesh use in prolapse surgery according to the recent UPDATE.

Available only for authorised users

Barber MD, Visco AG, Weidner AC et al (2000) Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1402–1411PubMedCrossRef

Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(360):e1-7

Nygaard IE, McCreery, Brubaker L et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823PubMedCrossRef

Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L et al (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 22:789–798PubMedCrossRef

Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2):242–250PubMedCrossRef

Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB et al (2007) Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:78.e1–78.e7CrossRef

Maher C, Feiner B, Glazener CMA. (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (4): CD004014

Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1418–1421PubMedCrossRef

Lo TS, Wang AC (1998) Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. J Gynecol Surg 14(2):59–64CrossRef

10.

Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL et al (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26PubMedCrossRef

11.

Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(2):455–462PubMedCrossRef

12.

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

13.

Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898PubMedCrossRef

14.

Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 19:1611–1616CrossRef

15.

Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116(10):1380–1386PubMedCrossRef

16.

Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramao SS et al (2010) Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 21:389–394PubMedCrossRef

17.

Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2):293–303PubMedCrossRef

18.

Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(235):e1–e8PubMed

19.

Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836PubMedCrossRef

20.

Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE et al (2008) Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 112(1):49–55PubMedCrossRef

21.

Deitz HP, Erdmann M, Shek KL (2011) Mesh contraction: myth or reality? Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(173):e1–e4

22.

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Berfstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRef

23.

Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267PubMedCrossRef

24.

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

25.

Nilsson CG, Palva K, Rezapour M, Falconer C (2008) Eleven years prospective follow-up of the tension-free vaginal tape procedure for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 19(8):1043–1047CrossRef

Title: Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”
Authors: Miles Murphy
Adam Holzberg
Heather van Raalte
Neeraj Kohli
Howard B. Goldman
Vincent Lucente
on behalf of the Pelvic Surgeons Network
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1581-2

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Mullerianosis involving the urinary bladder

Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not?

A perfect storm

Comparison of the puborectal muscle on MRI in women with POP and levator ani defects with those with normal support and no defect

Transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: more FDA concerns—positive reactions are possible

Reflections on my career as a urogynecologist