Laparoscopic complete sacrocolpopexy mesh removal for right-sided gluteal pain and recurrent mesh erosion

Early Experience of Transabdominal and Novel Transvaginal Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Removal of Transvaginal Mesh

Background: Mesh removal after transvaginal mesh placement has typically involved transvaginal, open pelvic, laparoscopic, or a combination of approaches. Robotic pelvic mesh removal has been described in a small number of cases only. This study aims at determining the feasibility and safety of using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the removal of pelvic mesh via the transabdominal and novel transvaginal approach. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective case series study on women who underwent transabdominal or transvaginal robot-assisted removal of pelvic mesh. Women were offered participation in this study with pelvic mesh and a clinical indication for mesh removal if they were older than the age of 18. Alternative surgical options, including conventional open removal of mesh, were discussed and offered to patients. The primary outcome of this study is the rate of successful removal of mesh and the 30-day complication rates. Ethics approval was obtained for this study. Results: Thirty patients were included in this study. Median age was 62. Median operative and console time was 240 and 148 minutes, respectively. Concomitant reconstructive procedures were performed in 40% of patients. Complete or near-complete mesh removal was achieved in 83.3% of patients. For the remaining patients, partial removal of mesh was performed as planned preoperatively. Three Clavien-Dindo grade 3b complications resulted from mesh removal: concomitant ureteric and bladder injury, omental bleed, and groin wound infection. Conclusion: This study presents the early experience of robotic-assisted removal of transvaginal mesh with a transvaginal or transabdominal approach and demonstrates the feasibility of removal of both retropubic and transobturator mid-urethral synthetic sling as well as transvaginal prolapse meshes with transobturator and sacrospinous mesh arms. Further studies are required to expand understanding on the learning curve, operating times, complication rates, and functional outcome of this operation.

Laparoscopic synthetic mesh explantation after sacrohysteropexy

INTRODUCTION

In this video, we present a case of rectal and bladder injury, which occurred during laparoscopic mesh removal following sacrohysteropexy treated 6 months later with a laparoscopic pectopexy.

METHODS

We present the case of a 66-year-old woman with a prolapse recurrence after sacrohysteropexy. During the laparoscopic explantation of the mesh, we detected a fixation of the mesh to the bladder and the rectum rather than a fixation to the vaginal walls. Consequently, bladder and rectal injuries occurred during the dissection and were diagnosed and repaired immediately. Due to bowel injury, the treatment of the prolapse was postponed. Six months later, a laparoscopic pectopexy was performed to avoid complications during the repeated dissection of the promontory. The postoperative recovery after the pectopexy was uncomplicated with no short-term prolapse recurrence or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy appears to be an efficient approach to mesh explantation. Futhermore, laparoscopic pectopexy seems to be a good approach to secondary prolapse reconstruction after sacrohysteropexy mesh explantation avoiding complications during repeated dissection of the promontory.

Laparoscopic partial sacrocolpopexy mesh resection due to mesh infection

PURPOSE

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold-standard procedure for apical compartment prolapse and has become a widely used intervention strategy. The mesh material used in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is associated with significant complications in some cases, frequently managed conservatively but sometimes necessitating mesh excision for symptom relief.

METHODS

In this video we present the case of a 49-year-old woman who after sacrocolpopexy reported foul-smelling discharge as the only symptom. The patient was treated with vaginocervical seroma debridement and removal of large parts of the mesh and paravaginal tissue. A methodical procedure including retroperitoneal dissection along with identification of the anatomical landmarks is critical in cases of suspected mesh infection and facilitates the procedure.

RESULTS

The operation does not include a complete mesh excision in order to avoid major surgery and to reduce the risk of recurrent prolapse. In the follow-up visits at 1 and 6 months postoperatively the patient was asymptomatic.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh activates an inflammatory process that leads to surrounding tissue fibrosis and scar tissue formation that can distort the pelvic anatomy (Chamsy and Lee in J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 21(6):986, 2014), thereby making dissection more difficult. This surgical procedure requires a comprehensive knowledge of the pelvic anatomy and a methodical surgical strategy.