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

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 4/2020

01-04-2020 | Sacrocolpopexy | AUGS-IUGA Joint Publication

Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist

Author: Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

The scientific approach to categorizing mesh complications and optimal methods to address them have been complicated by the rapid proliferation and evolution of materials and techniques that have been used over the past 20 years in surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders. In addition, terminology used to diagnose and categorize mesh complications and the descriptions of surgical procedures to manage them have been adopted inconsistently, further hampering the development of a collective experience with a standardized lexicon. Finally, much of the high-quality data on management of mesh complications is based on materials that are rarely used or not commercially available today.
Women experiencing mesh complications need to be heard and should have access to resources and providers who are most able to help. Many women require multiple procedures to address their mesh complications, and for some of these patients, relief is incomplete. We should strive to optimize the treatment at the initial diagnosis of a mesh-related complication.
This Position Statement has 4 goals:
1. Using the best and most relevant evidence available, provide guidance for the FPMRS subspecialist caring for patients who may be experiencing mesh complications
2: Provide an algorithm outlining treatment choices for patients with mesh-related complications that can be used as a platform for shared decision making in the treatment of these complications
3: Identify and prioritize gaps in evidence concerning specific mesh complications and their treatments
4: Identify provider and health facility characteristics that may optimize the outcomes of treatments for these complications
Literature
1.
Management of mesh and graft complications in gynecologic surgery. Committee Opinion No. 694. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urogynecologic Society. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(3):171–6.
2.
Gyang AN, Feranec JB, Patel RC, et al. Managing chronic pelvic pain following reconstructive pelvic surgery with transvaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:313–8.PubMed
3.
Crosby EC, Abernethy M, Berger MB, et al. Symptom resolution after operative management of complications from transvaginal mesh. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):134–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. International Urogynecological Association; International Continence Society; Joint IUGA/ICS Working Group on Complications Terminology. 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. NeurourolUrodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12.
5.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ. 2003;169:207–8.PubMedCentral
6.
Danford JM, Osborn DJ, Reynolds WS, et al. Postoperative pain outcomes after transvaginal mesh revision. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):65–9.PubMed
7.
Kobashi KC, Govier FE. Management of vaginal erosion of polypropylene mesh slings. J Urol. 2003;169:2242–3.PubMed
8.
Deffieux X, Thubert T, de Tayrac R, et al. Long-term follow-up of persistent vaginal polypropylene mesh exposure for transvaginally placed mesh procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1387–90.PubMed
9.
Hammett J, Peters A, Trowbridge E, et al. Short-term surgical outcomes and characteristics of patients with mesh complications from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:465–70.PubMed
10.
Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, et al. Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:163.e1–8.
11.
Padmanabhan P, Hutchinson RC, Reynolds WS, et al. Approach to management of iatrogenic foreign bodies of the lower urinary tract following reconstructive pelvic surgery. J Urol. 2012;187:1685–90.PubMed
12.
Tijdink MM, Vierhout ME, Heesakkers JP, et al. Surgical management of mesh-related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1395–404.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Fabian G, Kociszewski J, Kuszka A, et al. Vaginal excision of the sub-urethral sling: analysis of indications, safety and outcome. Arch Med Sci. 2015;11(5):982–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Kershaw V, Nicholson R, Ballard P, et al. Outcome of surgical management for midurethral sling complications: a multicentre retrospective cohort study [published online ahead of print January 7, 2019]. Int Urogynecol J. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3853-6.
15.
Jambusaria LH, Heft J, Stuart Reynolds W, et al. Incontinence rates after midurethral sling revision for vaginal exposure or pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):764.e1–5.
16.
Plowright LN, Duggal B, Aguilar VC, et al. Endoscopic transurethral resection of urethral mesh erosion with the use of a pediatric nasal speculum. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(Pt 2 Suppl 1):440–3.PubMed
17.
Wijffels SA, Elzevier HW, Lycklama a Nijeholt AA. Transurethral mesh resection after urethral erosion of tension-free vaginal tape: report of three cases and review of literature. Int Urogynecol Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:261–3.
18.
Quiroz LH, Cundiff GW. Transurethral resection of tension-free vaginal tape under tactile traction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:873–5.PubMed
19.
Velemir L, Amblard J, Jacquetin B, et al. Urethral erosion after suburethral synthetic slings: risk factors, diagnosis, and functional outcome after surgical management. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:999–1006.
20.
Kowalik CG, Cohn JA, Kakos A, et al. Road to recovery after transvaginal surgery for urethral mesh perforation: evaluation of outcomes and subsequent procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):887–92.PubMed
21.
Ogel CA, Linder BJ, Elliott DS. Holmium laser excision for urinary mesh erosion: a minimally invasive treatment with favorable long-term results. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1645–8.
22.
Kim JH, Doo SW, Yang WJ, et al. Laparoscopic transvesical excision and reconstruction in the management of mid-urethral tape mesh erosion and stones around the bladder neck: initial experiences. BJU Int. 2012;110:E1009–13.PubMed
23.
Shah K, Nikolavsky D, Gilsdorf D, et al. Surgical management of lower urinary mesh perforation after mid-urethral polypropylene mesh sling: mesh excision, urinary tract reconstruction and concomitant pubovaginal sling with autologous rectus fascia. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:2111–7.PubMed
24.
Talli Y, Rosenbaum PT, Owens A. The role of pelvic floor physical therapy in the treatment of pelvic and genital pain–related sexual dysfunction (CME). J Sex Med. 2008;5:513–23.
25.
26.
Agnew G, Dwyer PL, Rosamilia A, et al. Functional outcomes following surgical management of pain, exposure or extrusion following a suburethral tape insertion for urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(2):235–9.PubMed
27.
Cadish LA, Hacker MR, Modest AM, et al. Characterization of pain after inside-out transobturator midurethral sling. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(2):99–103.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Parnell BA, Johnson EA, Zolnoun DA. Genitofemoral and perineal neuralgia after transobturator midurethral sling. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 2):428–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Duckett JR, Jain S. Groin pain after a tension-free vaginal tape or similar suburethral sling: management strategies. BJU Int. 2005;95(1):95–7.PubMed
30.
Rigaud J, Pothin P, Labat JJ, et al. Functional results after tape removal for chronic pelvic pain following tension-free vaginal tape or transobturator tape. J Urol. 2010;184(2):610–5.PubMed
31.
Ismail S, Chartier-Kastler E, Reus C, et al. Functional outcomes of synthetic tape and mesh revision surgeries: a monocentric experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:805–13.PubMed
32.
Hou JC, Alhalabi F, Lemack GE, et al. Outcome of transvaginal mesh and tape removed for pain only. J Urol. 2014;192(3):856–60.PubMed
33.
Misrai V, Rouprêt M, Xylinas E, et al. Surgical resection for suburethral sling complications after treatment for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;181(5):2198–202.PubMed
34.
Miklos JR, Chinthakanan O, Moore RD, et al. Indications and complications associated with the removal of 506 pieces of vaginal mesh used in pelvic floor reconstruction: a multicenter study. Surg Technol Int. 2016;29:185–9.PubMed
35.
Marcus-Braun N, Bourret A, von Theobald P. Persistent pelvic pain following transvaginal mesh surgery: a cause for mesh removal. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162:224–8.PubMed
36.
Hazewinkel MH, Hinoul P, Roovers JP. Persistent groin pain following a trans-obturator sling procedure for stress urinary incontinence: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(3):363–5.PubMed
37.
Wong KS, Nguyen JN, White T, et al. Adverse events associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgeries that use implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1239–45.PubMed
38.
Taylor GB, Moore RD, Miklos JR. Osteomyelitis secondary to sacral colpopexy mesh erosion requiring laminectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(Pt 2):475–7.PubMed
39.
Hart SB, Weiser EB. Abdominal sacral colpopexy mesh erosion resulting in a sinus tract formation and sacral abscess. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1037–40.PubMed
40.
Grimes CL, Tan-Kim J, Garfin SR, et al. Sacral colpopexy followed by refractory Candida albicans osteomyelitis and discitis requiring extensive spinal surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(2 Pt 2):464–8.PubMed
41.
Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, et al. Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:188–96.
42.
Kohli N, Walsh PM, Roat TW, et al. Mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:999–1004.PubMed
43.
Arsene E, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, et al. Sacral colpopexy: long-term mesh complications requiring reoperation(s). Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:353–8.PubMed
44.
Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Fagan MJ, et al. Partial colpocleisis for the treatment of sacrocolpopexy mesh erosions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:261–6.PubMed
45.
South MM, Foster RT, Webster GD, et al. Surgical excision of eroded mesh after prior abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:615.e1–5.
46.
Mattox TF, Stanford EJ, Varner E. Infected abdominal sacrocolpopexies: diagnosis and treatment. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15:319–23.PubMed
47.
Buechel M, Tarr ME, Walters MD. Vaginal apical pain after sacrocolpopexy in absence of vaginal mesh erosion: a case series. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:e8–e10.
48.
Kwon SY, Brown S, Hibbeln J, et al. Conservative management of pelvic abscess following sacrocolpopexy: a report of three cases and review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:875–9.PubMed
49.
Govier FE, Kobashi KC, Kozlowski PM, et al. High complication rate identified in sacrocolpopexy patients attributed to silicone mesh. Urology. 2005;65:1099–103.PubMed
50.
Oliver JL, Chaudhry ZQ, Medendorp AR, et al. Complete excision of sacrocolpopexy mesh with autologous fascia sacrocolpopexy. Urology. 2017;106:65–9.PubMed
51.
Muller PC, Berchtold C, Kuemmerli C, et al. Spondylodiscitis after minimally invasive recto- and colpo-sacropexy: report of a case and systematic review of the literature. J Minim Access Surg. 2020;16:5–12.PubMed
52.
NICE guidance—urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management: © NICE (2019) urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. BJU Int. 2019;123(5):777–803.
53.
Deffieux X, de Tayrac R, Huel C, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after transvaginal repair of cystocele using Gynemesh or Gynemesh-Soft in 138 women: a comparative study. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18:73–9.
54.
MacDonald S, Terlecki R, Costantini E, et al. Complications of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: tips for prevention, recognition and management. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:260–7.PubMed
55.
Warembourg S, Labaki M, de Tayrac R, et al. Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:1139–51.PubMed
56.
Lee D, Chang J, Zimmern PE. Iatrogenic pelvic pain: surgical and mesh complications. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2017;28(3):603–19.PubMed
57.
Miklos JR, Chinthakanan O, Moore RD, et al. The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:933–8.PubMed
58.
Feiner B, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):325–30.PubMed
59.
Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MF, et al. Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):703.e1–7.
60.
Jeffery ST, Nieuwoudt A. Beyond the complications: medium-term anatomical, sexual and functional outcomes following removal of trocar-guided transvaginal mesh. A retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1391–6.PubMed
61.
Firoozi F, Ingber MS, Moore CK, et al. Purely transvaginal/perineal management of complications from commercial prolapse kits using a new prostheses/grafts complication classification system. J Urol. 2012;187(5):1674–9.PubMed
62.
Hokenstad ED, El-Nashar SA, Blandon RE, et al. Health-related quality of life and outcomes after surgical treatment of complications from vaginally placed mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(3):176–80.PubMed
63.
Lee D, Dillon B, Lemack G, et al. Transvaginal mesh kits—how “serious” are the complications and are they reversible? Urology. 2013;81(1):43–8.PubMed
64.
Skala CE, Renezeder K, Albrich S, et al. Mesh complications following prolapse surgery: management and outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(2):453–6.PubMed
65.
Toozs-Hobson P, Cardozo L, Hillard T. Managing pain after synthetic mesh implants in pelvic surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;234:49–52.PubMed
66.
Sancak EB, Avci E, Erdogru T. Pudendal neuralgia after pelvic surgery using mesh: case reports and laparoscopic pudendal nerve decompression. Int J Urol. 2016;23(9):797–800.PubMed
67.
ACOG Practice Committee Opinion no. 513: vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1459–64.
68.
69.
Blandon RE, Gebhart JB, Trabuco EC, et al. Complications from vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(5):523–31.PubMed
70.
Dallas KB, Trimble R, Rogo-Gupta L, et al. Care seeking patterns for women requiring a repeat pelvic organ prolapse surgery due to native tissue repair failure compared to a mesh complication. Urology. 2018;122:70–5.PubMed
71.
Balachandran A, Duckett J. What is the role of the multidisciplinary team in the management of urinary incontinence? Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):791–3.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist
Author
Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association
Publication date
01-04-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Sacrocolpopexy
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04248-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 4/2020 Go to the issue

Commentary

Commentary on “Impact of age on outcomes of midurethral sling procedures in women”, So Hyun Ahn, Yun Jin Park, Mi Kyung Kong, Sang Wook Bai, International Urogynecology Journal, 2019

Original Article

“Voice your choice”: a study of women’s choice of surgery for primary stress urinary incontinence

Letter to the Editor

Authors’ reply to letter from Schiøtz et al. on “Use of surgical databases in urogynaecology”

Original Article

Outcomes and failure risks in mid-urethral sling insertion in elderly and old age with urodynamic stress incontinence

IUJ Video

A novel technique for complete laparoscopic excision of a transobturator sling with lower urinary tract mesh erosion

Review Article

Survey on surgery for stress urinary incontinence in an era mid-urethral slings are being questioned