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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Stress Incontinence | Review Article

Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Authors: Eoin MacCraith, Eoghan M. Cunnane, Michael Joyce, James C. Forde, Fergal J. O’Brien, Niall F. Davis

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to systematically compare rates of erosion and chronic pain after mesh insertion for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery.

Methods

A systematic electronic search was performed on studies that evaluated the incidence of erosion and chronic pain after mesh insertion for POP or SUI. The primary outcome measurement was to compare mesh erosion rates for POP and SUI surgery. Secondary outcome measurements were incidence of de novo pain and a comparison of patient demographics for both surgeries.

Results

Twenty-six studies on 292,606 patients (n = 9077 for POP surgery and n = 283,529 for SUI surgery) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 26.38 ± 22.17 months for POP surgery and 39.33 ± 27.68 months for SUI surgery. Overall, the POP group were older (p < 0.0001) and had a lower BMI (p < 0.0001). Mesh erosion rates were significantly greater in the POP group compared to the SUI group (4% versus 1.9%) (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.91–2.37; p < 0.0001). The duration from surgery to onset of mesh erosion was 306.84 ± 183.98 days. There was no difference in erosion rates between abdominal and transvaginal mesh for POP. There was no difference in erosion rates between the transobturator and retropubic approach for SUI. The incidence of chronic pain was significantly greater in the POP group compared to the SUI group (6.7% versus 0.6%) (OR 11.02; 95% CI 8.15–14.9; p < 0.0001). The duration from surgery to onset of chronic pain was 325.88 ± 226.31 days.

Conclusions

The risk of mesh erosion and chronic pain is significantly higher after surgery for POP compared to SUI. These significant complications occur within the first year after surgery.
Literature
1.
Haylen BT, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.PubMed
2.
Mettu JR, Colaco M, Badlani GH. Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(4):370–4.PubMed
3.
Norton P, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women. Lancet. 2006;367(9504):57–67.PubMed
4.
Wu JM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. Bjog. 2016;123(8):1386–92.PubMed
6.
Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.PubMed
7.
Keltie K, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12015.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Ford AA, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:Cd006375.
9.
Milani AL, et al. The use of mesh in vaginal prolapse. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(31):A6324.PubMed
10.
Ugianskiene A, Davila GW, Su TH. FIGO review of statements on use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147(2):147–55.PubMed
11.
Department of Health I. Minister for Health Simon Harris Announces Pause in the Use of Transvaginal Mesh Devices. 2018.
12.
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(2):103.e1–4.
13.
14.
15.
Clark HD, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448–52.PubMed
16.
17.
Min H, et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the application of adjuvant material in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(5):919–36.PubMed
18.
Hudson CO, et al. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):252–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Rudnicki M, et al. Adjustable mini-sling compared with conventional mid-urethral slings in women with urinary incontinence. A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(11):1347–56.PubMed
20.
Milani AL, et al. Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):847–58.PubMed
21.
Brubaker L, et al. Adverse events over two years after retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling surgery: findings from the trial of Midurethral slings (TOMUS) study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):498.e1–6.
22.
Bjelic-Radisic V, et al. Vaginal prolapse surgery with transvaginal mesh: results of the Austrian registry. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(8):1047–52.PubMed
23.
Wang C, Christie AL, Zimmern PE. Synthetic mid-urethral sling complications: evolution of presenting symptoms over time. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(6):1937–42.PubMed
24.
Kenton K, et al. 5-year longitudinal followup after retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol. 2015;193(1):203–10.PubMed
25.
Yildiz G, et al. Safety and efficacy of single-incision sling for female stress urinary incontinence: 3 years' results. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(11):1667–71.PubMed
26.
Hsieh HY, et al. Factors that affect outcomes of prolapse repair using single-incision vaginal mesh procedures. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(1):298–306.PubMed
27.
Withagen MI, et al. Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):629–36.PubMed
28.
Takahashi S, et al. Tension-free vaginal mesh procedure for pelvic organ prolapse: a single-center experience of 310 cases with 1-year follow up. Int J Urol. 2010;17(4):353–8.PubMed
29.
Berger AA, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA. Long-term risk of reoperation after synthetic mesh Midurethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):1047–55.PubMed
30.
Berger AA, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA. Surgeon volume and reoperation risk after midurethral sling surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):523.e1–8.
31.
Chughtai B, et al. Association between the amount of vaginal mesh used with mesh erosions and repeated surgery after repairing pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(3):257–63.PubMed
32.
Jonsson Funk M, et al. Sling revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention: long-term risk and predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):73.e1–7.
33.
Karmakar D, Dwyer PL, Nikpoor P. Mid-urethral sling revision for mesh exposure-long-term outcomes of two surgical techniques from a comparative clinical retrospective cohort study. Bjog. 2020;127(8):1027–33.PubMed
34.
Kokanali MK, et al. Risk factors for mesh erosion after vaginal sling procedures for urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;177:146–50.PubMed
35.
Linder BJ, et al. Predictors of vaginal mesh exposure after midurethral sling placement: a case-control study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1321–6.PubMed
36.
Nguyen JN, et al. Perioperative complications and reoperations after incontinence and prolapse surgeries using prosthetic implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(3):539–46.PubMed
37.
Stewart LE, et al. Stress urinary incontinence surgery in Washington state before and after introduction of the mesh Midurethral sling. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(5):358–61.PubMed
38.
Baines G, et al. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1475–81.PubMed
39.
de Landsheere L, et al. Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years' median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):83.e1–7.
40.
Wong KS, et al. Adverse events associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgeries that use implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1239–45.PubMed
41.
Levy G, et al. Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: retrospective long-term follow-up. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176666.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Khan ZA, Thomas L, Emery SJ. Outcomes and complications of trans-vaginal mesh repair using the Prolift™ kit for pelvic organ prolapse at 4 years median follow-up in a tertiary referral Centre. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1151–7.PubMed
43.
Karmakar D, Mostafa A, Abdel-Fattah M. Long-term outcomes of transobturator tapes in women with stress urinary incontinence: E-TOT randomised controlled trial. Bjog. 2017;124(6):973–81.PubMed
44.
Kaufman Y, et al. Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):307–13.PubMed
45.
Brennand EA, et al. Twelve-month outcomes following midurethral sling procedures for stress incontinence: impact of obesity. Bjog. 2015;122(12):1705–12.PubMed
46.
Lapitan MC, Cody JD, Grant A. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):Cd002912.
47.
Rehman H, et al. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7):Cd001754.PubMed
48.
Davis NF, Kheradmand F, Creagh T. Injectable biomaterials for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: their potential and pitfalls as urethral bulking agents. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):913–9.PubMed
49.
Kirchin V, et al. Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:Cd003881.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review
Authors
Eoin MacCraith
Eoghan M. Cunnane
Michael Joyce
James C. Forde
Fergal J. O’Brien
Niall F. Davis
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04612-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

International Urogynecology Journal 3/2021 Go to the issue

IUJ Video

Meatal-sparing dorsal onlay vaginal graft urethroplasty: widening the surgical horizons of female urethral stricture

Review Article

The pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Commentary

A commentary on “Short-, mid-, and long-term incontinence outcomes in women undergoing mid-urethral sling procedures: a retrospective cohort study”

Commentary

“Do labial anatomic variations have an effect on recurrent urinary tract infection?” Letter to the editor

Commentary

Re: “Isolated rectal buttonhole tears in obstetrics: case series and review of the literature”

Original Article

Voided volume for postoperative voiding assessment following prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery