Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-08-2015 | Original Article

Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single centre

Authors: Debjyoti Karmakar, Lynsey Hayward, Jackie Smalldridge, Sylvia Lin

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim was to assess the long-term surgical outcomes and complications in patients undergoing mesh-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

This is a report of a prospective long-term follow-up experience from the Urogynaecological Service, Counties Manukau District Health Board (CMDHB), Auckland, New Zealand. The subjects were 158 symptomatic women undergoing mesh-augmented prolapse repair (218 kits, Feb 2005 to July 2013) using the Apogee® and/or Perigee® kits (with IntePro® mesh until November 2009, and IntePro Lite® mesh thereafter). A dedicated electronic database was used.

Results

The median follow-up times were 138 and 105 weeks for the Apogee and Perigee kits, respectively; 56.6 % and 48.8 % of these kits, respectively, were inserted for recurrent prolapse. Cure rates for prolapse using mesh kits in patients with a history of native tissue POP repair in the same compartment were 90.91 % for the anterior compartment (60 of 66) and 95.74 % for the posterior compartment (45 of 47). The cumulative mesh extrusion/exposure rate was 15.8 % of patients (11.5 % of mesh kits) and was significantly higher with the Apogee kit than with the Perigee kit (P = 0.03). The rate of extrusion/exposure was significantly lower with IntePro Lite than with IntePro (P = 0.04 for Perigee and P = 0.0001 for Apogee). There was a significantly higher rate of extrusion/exposure with the Perigee kit in women with previous anterior compartment native tissue repair than with the Apogee kit in women with previous posterior compartment native tissue repair (21.2 % versus 6.4 %; P = 0.03). Only 8 % of extrusions/exposures needed revision of the mesh. A set of significant predictors of mesh extrusion/exposure was identified. Overall success rates were 81.4 % (110/135) for the Perigee kit and 74.7 % (62/83) for the Apogee kit.

Conclusions

This is one of the longest prospective mesh follow-up studies to date from a single centre and highlights the need for continuing surveillance despite high overall success rates.

US Food and Drug Administration (2008) FDA Public Health Notification: Serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 19 February 2015

US Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA Safety Communication: Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm.

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5 PubMed

Feiner B, Jelovsek JE, Maher C (2009) Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review. BJOG 116:15–24PubMedCrossRef

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 34:449–456PubMedCrossRef

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 17:315–320PubMedCrossRef

Hung MJ, Liu FS, Shen PS, Chen GD, Lin LY, Ho ES (2004) Factors that affect recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy procedure reinforced with four-corner anchored polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:399–406PubMedCrossRef

Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462PubMedCrossRef

Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S et al (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(5):527–535. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y PubMedCrossRef

10.

Guillibert F, Chêne G, Fanget C, Huss M, Seffert P, Chauleur C (2009) Risk factors of mesh exposure after transvaginal repair of genital prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 37(6):470–475PubMedCrossRef

11.

Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, Chen SS, Lin TY, Hsieh CH et al (2009) Short term impact on female sexual function of pelvic floor reconstruction with the Prolift procedure. J Sex Med 6(11):3201–3207PubMedCrossRef

12.

Araco F, Gravante G, Sorge R, Overton J, De Vita D, Primicerio M et al (2009) The influence of BMI, smoking, and age on vaginal erosions after synthetic mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapses. A multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88(7):772–780PubMedCrossRef

13.

Davila GW, Baessler K, Cosson M, Cardozo L (2012) Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23(suppl 1):S7–S14PubMedCrossRef

14.

Deffieux X, Letouzey V, Savary D, Sentilhes L, Agostini A, Mares P et al (2012) Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165:170–180PubMedCrossRef

15.

American Urogynecologic Society Board of Directors (2013) Position statement on restriction of surgical options for pelvic floor disorders: the American Urogynecologic Society Board of Directors. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(4):199–201CrossRef

16.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Audit support: surgical repair of vaginal wall prolapse using mesh. NICE interventional procedure guidance 267. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg267/documents/surgical-repair-of-vaginal-wall-prolapse-using-mesh-audit-support2. Accessed 19 February 2015

17.

Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG; Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (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(7):789–798. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1384-5 PubMedCrossRef

18.

de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot JP, Deken V, Foidart JM, Cosson M (2012) Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:83 e1–e7PubMedCrossRef

19.

Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 115(11):1350–1361PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gopinath D, Radley SC (2013) Complications of polypropylene mesh in prolapse surgery: an update. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med 10:300–306CrossRef

21.

Jacquetin B, Hinoul P, Gauld J, Fatton B, Rosenthal C, Clavé H et al (2013) Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 5-year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J 24(10):1679–1686. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2080-4 PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sirls LT, McLennan GP, Killinger KA, Boura JA, Fischer M, Nagaraju P et al (2013) Exploring predictors of mesh exposure after vaginal prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(4):206–209. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e318298b381 PubMedCrossRef

23.

Renaudiea J, Brouziyneb M, Priouc G, Devoldèred G, Mariee G, de Tayrac R (2013) Safety and 12-month results on stage 3–4 cystocele repair by the vaginal route using a light-weight mesh. Prog Urol 23:237–243CrossRef

24.

Moore RD, Lukban JC (2012) Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(10):1379–1386PubMedCrossRef

25.

Liang R, Abramowitch S, Knight K, Palcsey S, Nolfi A, Feola A et al (2013) Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG 120(2):233–243PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single centre
Authors: Debjyoti Karmakar
Lynsey Hayward
Jackie Smalldridge
Sylvia Lin
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2658-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single centre

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Association of antepartum vitamin D levels with postpartum pelvic floor muscle strength and symptoms

Surgery for urinary incontinence in women 65 years and older: a systematic review

Surgical management of recurrent upper vaginal prolapse following sacral colpopexy

Pre-departure preparation for international clinical work: a handbook

A paraurethal cyst with calculi

Transvaginal repair of stage III–IV cystocele using a lightweight mesh: safety and 36-month outcome