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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 3/2016

01-03-2016 | Female Urology (K Kobashi, Section Editor)

Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh

Authors: Natalie Gaines, Priyanka Gupta, Larry T. Sirls

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh remains the gold standard for advanced prolapse. There are several surgical approaches available to the pelvic reconstructive surgeon. Prolapse repair can be performed vaginally or abdominally using native tissue or may be augmented with a biologic or mesh patch. In this article, we will review the different approaches to prolapse repair, the role of mesh, and the risks and benefits of each option. Patient selection, surgical technique, and the rationale for using mesh will be explored. Complications from prolapse repair with mesh including dyspareunia, pelvic pain, mesh exposure, and reoperation will be discussed.
Literature
1.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4, CD004014.PubMed
2.
Shull BL, Benn SJ, Kuehl TJ. Surgical management of prolapse of the anterior vaginal segment: an analysis of support defects, operative morbidity, and anatomic outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171(6):1429–36. discussion 1436–9.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Shull BL, Capen CV, Riggs MW, et al. Preoperative and postoperative analysis of site-specific pelvic support defects in 81 women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1764–8. discussion 1768–71.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Paraiso MF, Ballard LA, Walters MD, et al. Pelvic support defects and visceral and sexual function in women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1423–30. discussion 1430–1.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, et al. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Delancey JO. Fascial and muscular abnormalities in women with urethral hypermobility and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(1):93–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, et al. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1837–40.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C, 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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
McLennan GP, Sirls LT, Killinger KA, et al. Perioperative experience of pelvic organ prolapse repair with the PROLIFT® and ELEVATE® vaginal mesh procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(2):287–94.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Abdelmonem AM. Vaginal length and incidence of dyspareunia after total abdominal versus vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(2):190–2.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, et al. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1762–71.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, et al. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):578–83. discussion 583–5.PubMedCentralPubMed
14.
Ward KL, Hilton P, UK and Ireland TVT Trial Group. A prospective multicenter randomized trial of tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension for primary urodynamic stress incontinence: two-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(2):324–31.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Serati M, Bauer R, Cornu JN, et al. TVT-O for the treatment of pure urodynamic stress incontinence: efficacy, adverse effects, and prognostic factors at 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):872–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Amid PK. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia. 1997;1(1):15–21.CrossRef
17.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
21.
Gupta P, Ehlers M, Killinger KA, et al. Comparison of operative and perioperative outcomes between robotic assisted prolapse repair and transvaginal mesh repair [abstract]. J Urol. 2015;193(4 Suppl), e1049. Abstract PD50-12.CrossRef
22.
Ehlert M, Gupta P, Bartley JM, et al. Perioperative outcomes, complications, and efficacy of robotic assisted prolapse repair [abstract]. J Urol. 2015;193(4 Suppl), e473. Abstract PD21-06.CrossRef
23.••
Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36. This multicenter randomized controlled trial showed significantly more women who underwent transvaginal mesh repair had stage 0 or stage 1 prolapse at one-year follow-up compared to women who underwent native tissue repair (60.8% vs. 34.5%).CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ali SHH, Lee LC. A prospective randomized trial using GYNEMESH PS for the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse [abstract]. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17(2 Suppl 2):221. Abstract no. 292.
25.
Nguyen JN. The use of grafts for anterior vaginal prolapse repair: pros and cons. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(5):501–5.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E, et al. Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1611–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(4):467–71.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, et al. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1337–44.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, et al. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG. 2011;118(12):1518–27.CrossRefPubMed
30.
El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(4):965–72.CrossRefPubMed
31.
de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, et al. Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1651–61.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, et al. Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):901–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Jha S, Gray T. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse on sexual function. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):321–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, et al. One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1), 86.e1-9.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Weber MA, Lakeman MM, Laan E, et al. The effects of vaginal prolapse surgery using synthetic mesh on vaginal wall sensibility, vaginal vasocongestion, and sexual function: a prospective single-center study. J Sex Med. 2014;11(7):1848–55.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Butrick CW. Pathophysiology of pelvic floor hypertonic disorders. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2009;36(3):699–705.CrossRef
38.
Unger CA, Abbott S, Evans JM, et al. Outcomes following treatment for pelvic floor mesh complications. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(6):745–9.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Gupta P, Gaines N, Sirls LT, et al. A multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation and management of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: an ideal model of care. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4(6):611–9.PubMedCentralPubMed
40.••
Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24. Long-term results from the CARE trial showed that the 7-year risk of abdominal sacrocolpopexy failure is higher than previously thought and also associated with an ongoing risk of mesh exposure in 10.5% of cases.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.••
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12. IUGA / ICS standardized terminology and classification for complications associated with mesh and other implants used in pelvic floor reconstruction.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Vaiyapuri GR, Han HC, Lee LC, et al. Use of the GYNECARE PROLIFT® system in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: 1-year outcome. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(7):869–77.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, et al. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):293–303.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Blum ES, Sirls LT, McLennan G, et al. Mesh exposure rates and management after transvaginal prolapse repair with the ELEVATE® and PROLIFT® systems [abstract]. J Urol. 2013;189(4 Suppl), e880. Abstract 2149.CrossRef
45.
Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, 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.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6), 688.e1-5.CrossRefPubMed
47.••
Sirls LT, McLennan GP, Killinger KA, et al. Exploring predictors of mesh exposure after vaginal prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):206–9. This retrospective review of 335 patients after mesh prolapse repair found that the two largest predictors for vaginal mesh exposure included change in hemoglobin and lower BMI. Increased pelvic bleeding leading to hematoma formation can later drain through the vaginal wall incision and create a vaginal epithelial separation, leading to mesh exposure.CrossRefPubMed
48.
El-Khawand D, Wehbe SA, O’Hare 3rd PG, et al. Risk factors for vaginal mesh exposure after mesh-augmented anterior repair: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(6):305–9.CrossRefPubMed
49.••
Bartley JM, Sirls LT, Killinger KA. Secondary surgery after vaginal prolapse repair with mesh is more common for stress incontinence and voiding dysfunction than for mesh problems or prolapse recurrence. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(4):609–15. Retrospective review of patients who underwent mesh vaginal prolapse surgery. Most patients who required reoperations were due to problems related to the sling or development of occult stress urinary incontinence (15%). This contrasts with only 7% of patients who required an additional procedure for a mesh-related complication.CrossRefPubMed
50.
de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot JP, 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.
51.
Ostergard DR, Azadi A. To mesh or not to mesh with polypropylene: does carcinogenesis in animals matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(5):569–71.CrossRefPubMed
52.
McGregor DB, Baan RA, Partensky C, et al. Evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans associated with surgical implants and other foreign bodies—a report of an IARC monographs programme meeting. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(3):307–13.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Oppenheimer BS, Oppenheimer ET, Stout AP, et al. The latent period in carcinogenesis by plastics in rats and its relation to the presarcomatous stage. Cancer. 1958;11(1):204–13.CrossRefPubMed
54.
King AB, Zampini A, Vasavada S, et al. Is there an association between polypropylene midurethral slings and malignancy? Urology. 2014;84(4):789–92.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh
Authors
Natalie Gaines
Priyanka Gupta
Larry T. Sirls
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0580-8

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Current Urology Reports 3/2016 Go to the issue

Urothelial Cancer (A Sagalowsky, Section Editor)

A Review Comparing Experience and Results with Bipolar Versus Monopolar Resection for Treatment of Bladder Tumors

Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)

Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario

Kidney Diseases (G Ciancio, Section Editor)

Rectourethral Fistula Management

Urosurgery (J Collins, Section Editor)

Evolving Guidance on Ureteric Calculi Management in the Acute Setting

Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)

Grading of Prostate Cancer: Past, Present, and Future

Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)

Prostate Cancer Imaging with Novel PET Tracers