Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits

The double-edged sword of mesh use in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a case report

Introduction

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a prevalent condition among parous women, often warranting surgical intervention. This case accentuates the complications associated with mesh in POP surgeries, iterating the imperative need for an evidence-based approach towards its utilization and exhaustive patient counselling.

Case presentation

A 60-year-old female, post-mesh-augmented POP repair, embarked on a 13-year journey characterized by persistent pelvic pain and multiple interventions. Despite undergoing several surgeries across different countries, involving mesh and stone removals, her symptoms, notably pelvic pain and dyspareunia, persisted. Clinical examinations revealed mesh erosion into the perivesical tissue, bladder, and associated stones, which were addressed through multiple interventions, albeit with transient success.

Discussion

The complex journey of this patient exemplifies the intricate challenges mesh poses in POP surgeries. While mesh application offers a minimally invasive approach and has proven successful in numerous cases, it simultaneously opens a Pandora's box of potential severe complications, necessitating thorough patient counselling and post-surgery management.

Conclusion

The case delineates the challenging path that clinicians and patients tread when navigating through mesh-associated complications post-POP repair. Although mesh has been heralded as a revolutionary approach in POP surgeries, its potential drawbacks necessitate judicious application, ensuring clinicians are well-versed with its associated risks and are adept in managing ensuing complications.

Perianal abscess as a manifestation of vaginocutaneous fistula after pelvic floor reconstruction

We present a case of vaginocutaneous fistula 10 years after pelvic floor reconstruction using transvaginal mesh implantation. The female patient in her mid-60s presented with typical symptoms of perianal abscess. After undergoing three surgical operations, the perianal infection was shown to be due to the implanted mesh as a late complication of the reconstruction. The patient was successfully managed with limited removal of the mesh tails. The case highlights one of the late complications of pelvic floor reconstruction using synthetic meshes.

Improvement in dyspareunia after vaginal mesh removal measured by a validated questionnaire

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to examine the effect of the surgical removal of vaginally placed prolapse and incontinence mesh on sexual function. We hypothesize that patients with painful complications of mesh will experience improvement in dyspareunia and sexual function after mesh removal.

METHODS

The eligible cohort consisted of 133 women who presented with a new onset of pain attributed to mesh-augmented incontinence or prolapse surgery and who elected to undergo mesh removal between 1 August 2012 and 1 July 2013. Sexual function symptoms were assessed before and after mesh removal surgery using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire short form (PISQ-12). Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of improvement in dyspareunia.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients undergoing mesh removal completed a pre-operative questionnaire, 63 of whom also completed a post-operative questionnaire. After mesh removal, there was a nearly 50% reduction in the proportion of women reporting always experiencing post-operative pain with intercourse among those experiencing pre-operative pain. There was a statistically significant quantitative improvement in pain with intercourse after mesh removal based on mean change score of PISQ-12 question 5 "How often do you experience pain with intercourse?". In multivariate analysis, only history of vaginal delivery was associated with symptom improvement.

CONCLUSION

Removal of transvaginal prolapse mesh is associated with improvement in self-reported dyspareunia based on a standardized question on a validated instrument in a small cohort of women. Although larger studies are needed to confirm the relationship between mesh-augmented surgeries and post-procedural dyspareunia, these data suggest that consideration of mesh removal is a reasonable step for patients with painful intercourse attributed to mesh-augmented prolapse and incontinence surgeries.

The Burden of Reoperations and Timeline of Problems in 1,530 Cases of Mesh-Related Complications

BACKGROUND

Mesh-related complications resulting from pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reconstruction operations may be a devastating experience leading to multiple and complex interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to describe the experience and time frame of management of mesh-related complications in women treated for POP or stress urinary incontinence in a tertiary center.

METHODS

1,530 cases of mesh-related complications were accessed regarding their clinical presentation, number of surgeries, and timeline of surgical treatments to treat multiple clinical complaints until the ultimate operation where all the meshes were removed in a single tertiary center.

RESULTS

The studied population revealed to be a highly referred one with only 10.2% of the cases implanted at our center. Clinical presentation varied widely with 48.7% referring pain as the chief complaint, while 31.3% complained of voiding dysfunctions, 2.5% reported genital prolapses, 2.2% complained of vaginal problems, and 1.2% noted intestinal problems as the main clinical complaint. Only 4.8% of the cases presented mesh erosion at examination; 57.8% of the cases required more than 1 operation to address the mesh-related problems. Sixty-eight cases had more than 10 operations up to complete removal. Three clusters of patients could be identified: (i)-those from whom the mesh was promptly removed after clinical problems emerged, (ii) those with slowly evolving problems, and (iii) those with escalating problems despite treatment attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh-related complications after pelvic floor reconstruction are an evolving disease with diverse clinical presentation. The identified time-related problems and the multiple failed attempts to treat their complications warrant attention with continuous monitoring of these patients and aggressive removal of the mesh if the clinical complaint cannot be swiftly managed.

Five-year outcomes of an anterior mesh kit for severe pelvic organ prolapse in women

AIMS

The Elevate™ Anterior mesh was designed to correct anterior vaginal wall defects by providing level 1 and 2 support via a single incision and transvaginal approach. This study aimed to examine the objective and subjective outcomes following prolapse repair using the Elevate™ Anterior mesh kit.

METHODS

A retrospective case series review of 270 patients with Baden-Walker Grades 3 or 4 anterior compartment prolapse who underwent the Elevate™ Anterior mesh kit was undertaken. Operative complications were recorded with follow-up intervals arranged at 1, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. A standardized questionnaire directed at urinary, pain and recurrence symptoms was used at each follow-up visit. Pelvic examinations were performed at each follow-up visit to assess for objective cure and for detection of complications. The primary outcome was to assess the cure rate defined as anterior vaginal wall prolapse ≤ Grade 1.

RESULTS

The follow-up rate was 28.9%. Subjective and objective cure rates at 60 months were 100% and 96.2%, respectively. Ten (3.7%) intraoperative complications were recorded. At 60 months, three (3.8%) patients complained of de novo stress/urge urinary incontinence. One patient had dyspareunia at 6 months postsurgery which resolved by the end of 1 year. Prolapse recurrences in the anterior compartment was 3.8% at the end of 5 years. Mesh exposure into the vagina occurred in three patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our experience with the Elevate™ Anterior mesh kit had promising subjective and objective outcomes with high patient satisfaction rates.

Management of Vaginal Mesh Exposures Following Female Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations and current evidence for the diagnosis and management of vaginal mesh exposures following female mesh-augmented anti-incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the introduction of mesh into female pelvic surgery, various applications have been reported, each with their own unique risk profile. The most commonly encountered mesh-related complication is vaginal mesh exposure. Current evidence on the management of vaginal mesh exposure is largely limited to observational studies and case series, though this is continuing to expand. We present a synthesis of the available data, as well as clinical and surgical approaches to managing this complication. It is important for surgeons to be familiar with the management of vaginal mesh exposures. Depending on the patient's presentation and goals, there is a role for conservative measures, mesh revision, or mesh excision. Further study is warranted to standardize mesh resection techniques and explore non-surgical treatments.

Efficacy of surgical revision of mesh complications in prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Women with mesh-related complications in prolapse (POP) and stress-urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery may benefit from operative mesh resection to alleviate symptoms. We hypothesized that mesh resection would alleviate symptoms and aimed to evaluate risks and benefits in these women.

METHODS

We carried out a cross-sectional study. Primary outcome was improvement specified as better, unchanged or worsened symptoms after mesh revision surgery. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HrQol) scores of validated questionnaires, surgical characteristics and physical findings at follow-up visits. Descriptive data were reported with mean and medians. Associations were calculated with Spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square test to determine statistical differences between groups.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine women who underwent mesh revision surgery between 2009 and 2016 were included. After a median follow-up of 1.7 (IQR: 1.1-2.4) years, 44 women (75%) reported improvement of symptoms. No significant surgical or patient characteristics were identified that could differentiate which patients did or did not experience cure or complications.A trend was observed to better HrQol scores in women who reported overall improvement after mesh revision surgery. Seventeen (29%) women needed a subsequent operation after mesh removal.

CONCLUSIONS

This cross-sectional study shows that mesh revision surgery alleviates symptoms in 75% of women with mesh-related complications. Type of revision surgery and individual characteristics did not seem to matter to the individual chance of cure or complications. These data can facilitate the counseling of women considering mesh revision surgery.

[Pelvic and perineal pain after genital prolapse: A literature review]

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic and perineal pain after genital prolapse surgery is a serious and frequent post-operative complication which diagnosis and therapeutic management can be complex.

MATERIALS ET METHODS

A literature review was carried out on the Pubmed database using the following words and MeSH : genital prolapse, pain, dyspareunia, genital prolapse and pain, genital prolapse and dyspareunia, genital prolapse and surgery, pain and surgery.

RESULTS

Among the 133 articles found, 74 were selected. Post-operative chronic pelvic pain persisting more than 3 months after surgery according to the International Association for the Study of Pain. It can be nociceptive, neuropathic or dysfunctional. Its diagnosis is mainly clinical. Its incidence is estimated between 1% and 50% and the risk factors are young age, the presence of comorbidities, history of prolapse surgery, severe prolapse, preoperative pain, invasive surgical approach, simultaneous placement of several meshes, less operator experience, increased operative time and early post-operative pain. The vaginal approach can cause a change in compliance and vaginal length as well as injury to the pudendal, sciatic and obturator nerves and in some cases lead to myofascial pelvic pain syndrome, whereas the laparoscopic approach can lead to parietal nerve damage. Therapeutic management is multidisciplinary and complex.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic pain after genital prolapse surgery is still obscure to this day.

Do we have adequate data to construct a valid algorithm for management of synthetic midurethral sling complications? ICI-RS 2019

BACKGROUND

Synthetic midurethral sling (MUS) procedures, purported for the last two decades as the gold standard surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence, have been in creasingly scrutinized in recent years with regard to the rate and severity of complications.

METHODS

During the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society meeting held in Bristol, UK, in 2019, a multidisciplinary panel held a think tank and discussed the contemporary evidence pertaining to the classification, investigation, and treatment of MUS complications.

RESULTS

The current classification system of mesh-related complications was discussed, and shortcomings were identified. The lack of a standardized clinical pathway was noted, and the value of clinical investigations and surgical treatments was difficult to fully evaluate. The paucity of high-level evidence was a common factor in all discussions, and the difficulties with setting up relevant randomized-controlled trials were highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of the think-tank discussions is summarized with a set of recommendations designed to stimulate future research.

Historic transvaginal meshes and procedures: what did my patient have done?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Transvaginal mesh kits were widely used to treat pelvic organ prolapse for over a 10-year period in the early 2000s. Due to safety concerns and FDA regulations, these mesh kits are no longer available for use. Thus, current Obstetricians and Gynecologists are likely to encounter these meshes, but may have no previous experience or exposure to the devices making it difficult to adequately monitor, counsel, and care for patients that underwent these types of procedures. This review highlights the most commonly used transvaginal mesh kit types, provides insight into signs and symptoms related to transvaginal mesh complications, and provides guidance for management of mesh complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Not all transvaginal mesh will give rise to a complication. If complications do occur, treatment options range from conservative observation to total mesh excision. Management must be customized to an individual patient's needs and goals.

SUMMARY

Transvaginal mesh kits promised increased durability of surgical repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Safety concerns over time caused these kits to no longer be available for use. Practicing Obstetricians and Gynecologists should be aware of the history of transvaginal mesh and the signs and symptoms of mesh complications.

Management of vaginal mesh exposure: A systematic review

Objectives: To identify various predisposing factors, the clinical presentation, and the management of vaginal mesh-related complications, with special emphasis on mesh exposure and the indications for and results of vaginal mesh removal.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using a search strategy based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses criteria. PubMed was queried for studies regarding aetiology, risk factors, and management of vaginal mesh exposure from 1 January 2008 to June 2018. Full-text articles were obtained for eligible abstracts. Relevant articles were included, and the cited references were used to identify relevant articles not previously included.

Results: A total of 102 abstracts were identified from the PubMed search criteria. An additional 45 studies were identified based on review of the cited references. After applying eligibility criteria and excluding impertinent articles, 58 studies were included in the final analysis.

Conclusion: Numerous studies have found at least some degree of symptomatic improvement regardless of the amount of mesh removed. Focal areas of exposure or pain can be successfully managed with partial mesh removal with low rates of complications. With partial mesh removal, many patients will ultimately require subsequent mesh removal procedures. For this reason, complete mesh excision is an alternative for patients with diffuse vaginal pain, large mesh exposure, and extrusion of mesh into adjacent viscera. However, when considering complete mesh removal, it is important to counsel patients regarding possible complications of removal and the increased risk of recurrent stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse postoperatively.

Abbreviations: MUS: midurethral sling; OR: odds ratio; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; SUI: stress urinary incontinence; TOT: transobturator; TVT: tension-free vaginal tape

Short-term Outcomes of Non-robotic Single-incision Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Surgical Technique

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Our main purpose was to describe the surgical technique and short-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (S-LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN

This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of 49 consecutive cases.

SETTING

This study was set at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from October 2016 to November 2017.

PATIENTS

The population for this study consisted of women with stage II to IV POP who met eligibility criteria for laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

S-LSC included the use of V-loc barbed suture and retroperitoneal tunneling, in addition to standard single-incision laparoscopic surgery techniques. All 49 cases were successfully completed. All cases included concomitant procedures; 42 (85.7%) had removal of the uterus and adnexa. The main measured outcomes include patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and change in pelvic floor support (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System), and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All patients were parous, and 42.9% had a history of previous abdominal surgery. The mean operative duration from skin to skin was 201.20 ± 46.53 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 27.0 ± 16.6 mL. The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores were 2.2 ± 1.1 cm versus -2.6 ± 0.5 cm for the Aa point and 3.2 ± 2.8 cm versus -4.6 ± 0.8 cm for the C point (p <.05 for both). The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores were 106.4 ± 18.9 versus 8.9 ± 4.26 (p <.05), suggesting that S-LSC significantly improved physical prolapse and quality of life. Four patients suffered from postoperative complications (3 mesh exposure and 1 lumbosacral pain). Six patients complained of new onset of stress urinary incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a feasible method to manage POP. However, the long-term effects and complications need to be further investigated.

Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Correction by Single Incision and Using Monoprosthesis: Three-year Follow-up

Background:

The aim was to study the effectiveness and safety of a modified technique that employs a four-arm polypropylene (PP) mesh (NAZCA-TC) to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and concurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) simultaneously.

Materials and Methods:

This prospective follow-up study was conducted on fifty SUI women with concurrent high-grade (greater than Stage 2) anterior vaginal wall and/or uterine prolapse who were referred to Al-Zahra and Noor Hospitals in Isfahan and underwent surgery using the NAZCA-TC, Promedon, Argantina kit. The POP-Quantification system was employed for staging POP before and after surgery. To evaluate lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and patients’ quality of life, a stress test and the short form of International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire of Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptom were used. Patients were followed up and assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery.

Results:

The mean age of patients was 58.2 ± 10.2 years. There was a great reduction (88.6%) in POP staging after surgery. The success rate of SUI treatment was significantly high (83.5%). During 3 years of postoperative follow-up, mesh erosion occurred in 18%, 5 patients (10%) presented with mesh erosion in the first years after operation, 16% reported significant groin or pelvic pain, and 10% required sling release.

Conclusion:

A single vaginal incision and using two less percutaneous access sites with the PP meshes were effective for treating patients with concurrent POP and SUI but have a high rate of postsurgery erosion rate.

Transobturator four arms mesh in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence with cystocele

Objective

This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of four arms polypropylene mesh in the long- term follow-up in the management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) associated with cystocele.

Material and methods

This prospective study was conducted on 50 female patients with SUI associated with cystocele. Patients underwent placement of transobturator four-arms mesh implants. Stress incontinence was evaluated using cough stress test with and without prolapse reduction, Stamey's grading of SUI, the validated Arabic version of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form and King Health Questionnaire forms. Perioperative parameters evaluated included age, body mass index, grade of SUI, time of procedure, hospital stay after surgery, difference between pre-, and postoperative serum hemoglobin values, and need for blood transfusion. Follow- up visits were planned at 3, 9 and 18 months after surgery.

Results

The mean operative time was 37.4±10.2 (25-60) minutes. Blood transfusion was not required. The mean hospital stay was 30.5±10 (24-48) hrs. Five (10%) patients had fever and urinary tract infections were noticed in five (10%) patients. Two (4%) women had urine retention after catheter removal and vaginal mesh erosion was present in one (2%) patient. Forty (80%) patients were cured from SUI, 8 (16%) patients were improved and 2 (4%) patients failed to respond.

Conclusion

Cystocele associated with SUI can be repaired with transobturator four-arms mesh with promising results, improved quality of life, and tolerable side effects.

Risk factors and management of vaginal mesh erosion after pelvic organ prolapse surgery

OBJECTIVE

Mesh erosion is a serious and not uncommon complication in women undergoing vaginal mesh repair. We hypothesized that mesh erosion is associated with the patient's comorbidities, surgical procedures, and mesh material. The aims of this study were to identify the risk factors and optimal management for mesh erosion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All women who underwent vaginal mesh repair from 2004 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patients' characteristics, presenting symptoms, treatment and outcomes were collected from their medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 741 women underwent vaginal mesh repairs, of whom 47 had mesh erosion. The median follow-up period was 13 months (range 3-84 months). Another nine patients with mesh erosion were referred form other hospitals. Multivariate analysis revealed that concomitant hysterectomy (odds ratio 27.02, 95% confidence interval 12.35-58.82; p < 0.01) and hypertension (odds ratio 5.95, 95% confidence interval 2.43-14.49; p < 0.01) were independent risk factors for mesh erosion. Of these 56 women, 20 (36%) were successfully treated by conservative management, while 36 (64%) required subsequent surgical revision. Compared with surgery, conservative treatment was successful if the size of the erosion was smaller than 0.5 cm (p < 0.01). Six patients (17%) had recurrent erosions after primary revision, but all successfully healed after the second surgery.

CONCLUSION

Concomitant hysterectomy and hypertension were associated with mesh erosion. In the management of mesh erosion, conservative treatment can be tried as the first-line treatment for smaller erosions, while surgical repair for larger erosions. Recurrent erosions could happen and requires repairs several times.

Latency to vaginal mesh exposure with mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally in pelvic floor surgery: A retrospective comparative study. J OBSTET GYNAECOL 2016;37:238-242. [PMID: 27966387 DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2016.1245716]

The primary aim was to compare the difference in time to mesh exposure between mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally. This is a retrospective comparative study of patients presented with vaginal mesh exposure between January 2001 and July 2012. This study compares patients who had undergone vaginally placed mesh procedures to those who had had abdominally placed mesh. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to measure the time to mesh exposure. There were 68 patients with mesh exposure in our cohort. Thirty eight patients had undergone vaginal placement of mesh and 30 patients had abdominal mesh. There was a statistically significant difference in time to mesh exposure between abdominal and vaginal meshes (p≤.0001). Mean time to vaginal mesh exposure with abdominal mesh was 59.8 months (95%CI 46.2-73.3) compared to 23 months (95%CI 15.9-30.2) for vaginal mesh. When controlling for age, BMI and surgeon at index surgery, the Hazard Ratio for mesh exposure in our Cox Regression model was 0.53 (95%CI 0.39-0.71) (p ≤.0001). The mean time to vaginal mesh exposure after abdominal mesh was longer compared to the time to exposure with vaginally placed mesh (60 versus 23 months, p ≤.0001). These results support the evolving evidence that mesh exposures can occur many years distant from the procedure and warrant some level of surveillance or provision of warning signs by the providers who perform procedures with mesh.

Changes in pelvic organ prolapse mesh mechanical properties following implantation in rats

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a multifactorial disease that manifests as the herniation of the pelvic organs into the vagina. Surgical methods for prolapse repair involve the use of a synthetic polypropylene mesh. The use of this mesh has led to significantly higher anatomical success rates compared with native tissue repairs, and therefore, despite recent warnings by the Food and Drug Administration regarding the use of vaginal mesh, the number of POP mesh surgeries has increased over the last few years. However, mesh implantation is associated with higher postsurgery complications, including pain and erosion, with higher consecutive rates of reoperation when placed vaginally. Little is known on how the mechanical properties of the implanted mesh itself change in vivo. It is assumed that the mechanical properties of these meshes remain unchanged, with any differences in mechanical properties of the formed mesh-tissue complex attributed to the attached tissue alone. It is likely that any changes in mesh mechanical properties that do occur in vivo will have an impact on the biomechanical properties of the formed mesh-tissue complex.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to assess changes in the multiaxial mechanical properties of synthetic clinical prolapse meshes implanted abdominally for up to 90 days, using a rat model. Another objective of the study was to assess the biomechanical properties of the formed mesh-tissue complex following implantation.

STUDY DESIGN

Three nondegradable polypropylene clinical synthetic mesh types for prolapse repair (Gynemesh PS, Polyform Lite, and Restorelle) and a partially degradable polypropylene/polyglecaprone mesh (UltraPro) were mechanically assessed before and after implantation (n = 5/ mesh type) in Sprague Dawley rats for 30 (Gynemesh PS, Polyform Lite, and Restorelle) and 90 (UltraPro and Polyform Lite) days. Stiffness and permanent extension following cyclic loading, and breaking load, of the preimplanted mesh types, explanted mesh-tissue complexes, and explanted meshes were assessed using a multi-axial (ball-burst) method.

RESULTS

The 4 clinical meshes varied from each other in weight, thickness, porosity, and pore size and showed significant differences in stiffness and breaking load before implantation. Following 30 days of implantation, the mechanical properties of some mesh types altered, with significant decreases in mesh stiffness and breaking load, and increased permanent extension. After 90 days these changes were more obvious, with significant decreases in stiffness and breaking load and increased permanent extension. Similar biomechanical properties of formed mesh-tissue complexes were observed for mesh types of different preimplant stiffness and structure after 90 days implantation.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report on intrinsic changes in the mechanical properties of implanted meshes and how these changes have an impact on the estimated tissue contribution of the formed mesh-tissue complex. Decreased mesh stiffness, strength, and increased permanent extension following 90 days of implantation increase the biomechanical contribution of the attached tissue of the formed mesh-tissue complex more than previously thought. This needs to be considered when using meshes for prolapse repair.

Management of Mesh Complications after SUI and POP Repair: Review and Analysis of the Current Literature

Purpose. To evaluate the surgical treatment concepts for the complications related to the implantation of mesh material for urogynecological indications. Materials and Methods. A review of the current literature on PubMed was performed. Results. Only retrospective studies were detected. The rate of mesh-related complications is about 15–25% and mesh erosion is up to 10% for POP and SUI repair. Mesh explantation is necessary in about 1-2% of patients due to complications. The initial approach appears to be an early surgical treatment with partial or complete mesh resection. Vaginal and endoscopic access for mesh resection is favored. Prior to recurrent surgeries, a careful examination and planning for the operation strategy are crucial. Conclusions. The data on the management of mesh complication is scarce. Revisions should be performed by an experienced surgeon and a proper follow-up with prospective documentation is essential for a good outcome.

Temporal changes in the biomechanical properties of endometrial mesenchymal stem cell seeded scaffolds in a rat model

Use of synthetic clinical meshes in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair can lead to poor mechanical compliance in vivo, as a result of a foreign body reaction leading to excessive scar tissue formation. Seeding mesh with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) prior to implantation may reduce the foreign body reaction and lead to improved biomechanical properties of the mesh-tissue complex. This study investigates the influence of seeding human endometrial mesenchymal stem cells (eMSCs) on novel gelatin-coated polyamide scaffolds, to identify differences in scaffold/tissue biomechanical properties and new tissue growth following up to 90 days' implantation, in a subcutaneous rat model of wound repair. Scaffolds were subcutaneously implanted, either with or without eMSCs, in immunocompromised rats and following 7, 30, 60 and 90 days were removed and assessed for their biomechanical properties using uniaxial tensile testing. Following 7, 30 and 90 days' implantation scaffolds were assessed for tissue ingrowth and organization using histological staining and scanning electron microscopy. The eMSCs were associated with altered collagen growth and organization around the mesh filaments of the scaffold, affecting the physiologically relevant tensile properties of the scaffold-tissue complex, in the toe region of the load-elongation curve. Scaffolds seeded with eMSCs were significantly less stiff on initial stretching than scaffolds implanted without eMSCs. Collagen growth and organization were enhanced in the long-term in eMSC-seeded scaffolds, with improved fascicle formation and crimp configuration. Results suggest that neo-tissue formation and remodelling may be enhanced through seeding scaffolds with eMSCs.

Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to review complications associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

METHODS

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal mesh has a higher re-operation rate than native tissue vaginal repairs (grade A). If a synthetic mesh is placed via the vaginal route, it is recommended that a macroporous polypropylene monofilament mesh should be used. At sacral colpopexy mesh should not be introduced or sutured via the vaginal route and silicone-coated polyester, porcine dermis, fascia lata and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes are not recommended as grafts. Hysterectomy should also be avoided (grade B). There is no evidence to recommend routine local or systemic oestrogen therapy before or after prolapse surgery using mesh. The first cases should be undertaken with the guidance of an experienced surgeon in the relevant technique (grade C). Expert opinion suggests that by whatever the surgical route pre-operative urinary tract infections are treated, smoking is ceased and antibiotic prophylaxis is undertaken. It is recommended that a non-absorbable synthetic mesh should not be inserted into the rectovaginal septum when a rectal injury occurs. The placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the vesicovaginal septum may be considered after a bladder injury has been repaired, if the repair is considered to be satisfactory. It is possible to perform a hysterectomy in association with the introduction of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh inserted vaginally, but this is not recommended routinely.

Outcome of transvaginal mesh and tape removed for pain only

PURPOSE

Because there is reluctance to operate for pain, we evaluated midterm outcomes of vaginal mesh and synthetic suburethral tape removed for pain as the only indication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After receiving institutional review board approval we reviewed a prospective database of women without a neurogenic condition who underwent surgery for vaginal mesh or suburethral tape removal with a focus on pain as the single reason for removal and a minimum 6-month followup. The primary outcome was pain level assessed by a visual analog scale (range 0 to 10) at baseline and at each subsequent visit with the score at the last visit used for analysis. Parameters evaluated included demographics, mean time to presentation and type of mesh or tape inserted.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2013, 123 patients underwent surgical removal of mesh (69) and suburethral tape (54) with pain as the only indication. Mean followup was 35 months (range 6 to 59) in the tape group and 22 months (range 6 to 47) in the mesh group. The visual analog scale score decreased from a mean preoperative level of 7.9 to 0.9 postoperatively (p = 0.0014) in the mesh group and from 5.3 to 1.5 (p = 0.00074) in the tape group. Pain-free status, considered a score of 0, was achieved in 81% of tape and 67% of mesh cases, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When pain is the only indication for suburethral tape or vaginal mesh removal, a significant decrease in the pain score can be durably expected after removal in most patients at midterm followup.

Symptom resolution after operative management of complications from transvaginal mesh

OBJECTIVE

Complications from transvaginal mesh placed for prolapse often require operative management. The aim of this study is to describe the outcomes of vaginal mesh removal.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients having surgery by the urogynecology group in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at our institution for a complication of transvaginal mesh placed for prolapse was performed. Demographics, presenting symptoms, surgical procedures, and postoperative symptoms were abstracted. Comparative statistics were performed using the χ or Fisher's exact test with significance at P<.05.

RESULTS

Between January 2008 and April 2012, 90 patients had surgery for complications related to vaginal mesh and 84 had follow-up data. The most common presenting signs and symptoms were: mesh exposure, 62% (n=56); pain, 64% (n=58); and dyspareunia, 48% (n=43). During operative management, mesh erosion was encountered unexpectedly in a second area of the vagina in 5% (n=4), in the bladder in 1% (n=1), and in the bowel in 2% (n=2). After vaginal mesh removal, 51% (n=43) had resolution of all presenting symptoms. Mesh exposure was treated successfully in 95% of patients, whereas pain was only successfully treated in 51% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Removal of vaginal mesh is helpful in relieving symptoms of presentation. Patients can be reassured that exposed mesh can almost always be successfully managed surgically, but pain and dyspareunia are only resolved completely in half of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the evaluation and management of synthetic mesh-related complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of women who attended 4 US tertiary referral centers for evaluation of mesh-related complications after surgery for SUI and/or POP from January 2006 to December 2010. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were abstracted from the medical record, and complications were classified according to the Expanded Accordion Severity Classification.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-seven patients sought management of synthetic mesh-related complications over the study period. Index surgeries were performed for the following indications: SUI (sling only), 49.9%; POP (transvaginal mesh [TVM] or sacrocolpopexy only), 25.6%; and SUI + POP (sling + TVM or sacrocolpopexy), 24.2%. Median time to evaluation was 5.8 months (range, 0-65.2). Thirty percent of the patients had dyspareunia; 42.7% of the patients had mesh erosion; and 34.6% of the patients had pelvic pain. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had a grade 3 or 4 (severe) complication. Patients with TVM or sacrocolpopexy were more likely to have mesh erosion and vaginal symptoms compared with sling only. The median number of treatments for mesh complications was 2 (range, 1-9); 60% of the women required ≥2 interventions. Initial treatment intervention was surgical for 49% of subjects. Of those treatments that initially were managed nonsurgically, 59.3% went on to surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Most of the women who seek management of synthetic mesh complication after POP or SUI surgery have severe complications that require surgical intervention; a significant proportion require >1 surgical procedure. The pattern of complaints differs by index procedure.

Outcomes following treatment for pelvic floor mesh complications

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Our aim was to determine symptoms and degree of improvement in a cohort of women who presented following treatment for vaginal mesh complications.

METHODS

This study was a follow-up to a multicenter, retrospective study of women who presented to four tertiary referral centers for management of vaginal-mesh-related complications. Study participants completed a one-time follow-up survey regarding any additional treatment, current symptoms, and degree of improvement from initial presentation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty women received surveys; we had a response rate of 41.1 % (107/260). Complete data were available for 101 respondents. Survey respondents were more likely to be postmenopausal (p = 0.006), but otherwise did not differ from nonrespondents. Fifty-one percent (52/101) of women underwent surgery as the primary intervention for their mesh complication; 8 % (4/52) underwent a second surgery; 34 % (17/52) required a second nonsurgical intervention. Three patients required three or more surgeries. Of the 30 % (30/101) of respondents who reported pelvic pain prior to intervention, 63 % (19/30) reported improvement, 30 % (9/30) were worse, and 7 % (2/30) reported no change. Of the 33 % (33/101) who reported voiding dysfunction prior to intervention, 61 % (20/33) reported being at least somewhat bothered by these symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

About 50 % of women with mesh complications in this study underwent surgical management as treatment, and <10 % required a second surgery. Most patients with pain preintervention reported significant improvement after treatment; however, almost a third reported worsening pain or no change after surgical management. Less than half of patients with voiding dysfunction improved after intervention.

Changes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the last decade among United States urologists

PURPOSE

Surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse underwent transformation in the last decade. Training in pelvic organ prolapse surgery, the ease of mesh kit use, and Food and Drug Administration warnings about mesh have influenced practice patterns. We investigated trends in pelvic organ prolapse procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Case logs of pelvic organ prolapse procedures, mesh use and pessary placement were obtained from the American Board of Urology for 2003 to 2012. We evaluated associations between surgeon characteristics and the use of pelvic organ prolapse procedures.

RESULTS

Of 6,355 nonpediatric urologists applying for certification or recertification 2,192, representing a 10% annual sample of all urologists, reported performing pelvic organ prolapse procedures during the study period. The number of procedures increased steadily from 930 in 2003 to 6,978 in 2012. The number of colporrhaphies increased from 806 to 2,670 and the number of colpopexies increased from 32 to 1,414 between 2003 and 2012. The number of vaginal colpopexies increased from 24 to 1,016 during the study period. The number of sacrocolpopexies increased from 8 to 398 with exponential increases in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (282 cases by 2012). Mesh insertion increased from 10 cases reported by applicants in 2005 to 1,552 reported in 2012 (p <0.0005). Mesh revision, first reported in 2007 with 52 performed, consistently increased to 214 in 2012. Urologists trained in female urology performed a median of 16 pelvic organ prolapse procedures, double the number reported by surgeons trained in other urological fellowships. Urologists of the female gender also reported performing approximately 8 more procedures annually than male urologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of pelvic organ prolapse operations done by urologists increased dramatically in the last decade with a similar increase in mesh use. More colpopexies are now performed with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy showing an exponential increase. The recent trend of mesh revision is notable with a much faster rate of increase than mesh insertion.

Short-term surgical outcomes and characteristics of patients with mesh complications from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:465-470. [PMID: 24085144 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2227-3]

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can include the use of synthetic materials. Placement of synthetic materials into the vaginal wall, through either the vagina or the abdomen, includes the risk of complications such as vaginal wall extrusion or pain. There is little data regarding outcomes following treatment of mesh complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent excision of mesh placed for POP or SUI between 1 January 2001 and 31 October 2012 was performed at the University of Virginia. Chart abstraction queried patient demographics, clinical history, physical examination, pre- and post-excision symptoms, and operative findings. The International Continence Society (ICS) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) classification system was used to define the nature and location of mesh complications.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients (26 mid-urethral slings, 23 transvaginal prolapse, 9 intraperitoneal prolapse) with the diagnosis of mesh extrusion into the vaginal wall were analyzed. Twenty-five (average 2.8 cases/year) original mesh surgeries occurred between January 2001 and January 2010 and 41 (average 20.5 cases/year) occurred after January 2010. The most common presenting patient complaints were chronic pelvic pain (55.9 %), dyspareunia (54.4 %), and vaginal discharge (30.9 %). At a 6-week post-operative visit, 57.3 % of patient's symptoms were completely resolved and 14.6 % were improved.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should be cognizant of the variable presentations of post-operative vaginal mesh complications. Mesh excision by experienced pelvic surgeons is an effective and safe treatment for these complications; however, a significant number of patients may have persistent symptoms following surgery.

An appraisal of the Food and Drug Administration warning on urogynecologic surgical mesh

Currently, there is no consensus on the use of mesh in transvaginal surgical repairs for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. This review recapitulates and assesses the recent U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings about the use of surgical mesh in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair and summarizes the responses of the national organizations that represent the health care providers most invested in treating patients with transvaginal surgical mesh. Mesh exposure or extrusion through the vaginal wall, true mesh erosion into viscera, and infection are the major complications that are currently used to define the safety of synthetic mesh use. Other potential adverse postsurgical outcomes that can affect quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction include dyspareunia, "hispareunia" (ie, complaints of a sexual partner), prosthetic contraction or prominence, vaginal shortening, pelvic pain, urinary dysfunction, and failure of the repair. These outcomes are frequently attributed to mesh use, and can result in expense, frustration, and the need for further medical and surgical interventions for patients undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Information regarding the FDA's reports on the use of surgical mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair should be made available to patients at the time of surgical planning and should be used as an adjunct in the process of obtaining informed consent.

Computer modeling informs study design: vaginal estrogen to prevent mesh erosion after different routes of prolapse surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Many clinicians use perioperative vaginal estrogen therapy (estradiol, E(2)) to diminish the risk of mesh erosion after prolapse surgery, though supporting evidence is limited. We assessed the feasibility of a factorial randomized trial comparing mesh erosion rates after vaginal mesh prolapse surgery (VM) versus minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC), with or without adjunct vaginal estrogen therapy.

METHODS

A Markov state transition model simulated the probability of 2-year outcomes of visceral injury, mesh erosion, and reoperation after four possible prolapse therapies: VM or MISC, each with or without estrogen therapy (E(2)). We used pooled estimates from a systematic review to generate probability distributions for the following outcomes after each procedure: visceral injury, postoperative mesh erosion, and reoperation for either recurrent prolapse or mesh erosion. Assuming different assumptions for E(2) efficacies (50 and 75 % reduction in erosion rates), Monte Carlo simulations estimated outcomes rates, which were then used to generate sample size estimates for a four-arm factorial trial.

RESULTS

While E(2) reduced the risk of mesh erosion for both VM and MISC, absolute reduction was small. Assuming 75 % efficacy, E(2) decreased the risk of mesh erosion for VM from 7.8 to 2.0 % and for MISC from 2.0 to 0.5 %. Total sample sizes ranged from 448 to 1,620, depending on power and E(2) efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The required sample size for a trial to determine which therapy results in the lowest erosion rates would be prohibitively large. Because this remains an important clinical issue, further study design strategies could include composite outcomes, cost-effectiveness, or value of information analysis.

Controversies in the management of mesh-based complications: a urology perspective

Since the introduction of the synthetic midurethral sling, several transvaginal mesh delivery systems have been developed for treating stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Widespread use of these "kits" has introduced a new dilemma of mesh-specific complications that female pelvic surgeons must manage. Differing treatment techniques have been described and controversy exists as to which method is preferred for vaginal mesh extrusion, mesh perforations, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia. This article addresses the differing management strategies for mesh complications after reconstructive surgery and highlights the available literature on the success of each option.

Interrater reliability of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) classification system for mesh-related complications

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess interrater reliability of the International Continence Society (ICS)/International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) classification system of vaginal mesh-related complications and compare this with several other available complication classification systems.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective analysis of mesh-related complications in patients presenting after pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence surgery. The complications were classified by 2 independent reviewers using the ICS/IUGA classification system as well as 3 other available classification systems. Interrater reliability was assessed using percent agreement and the weighted κ statistic.

RESULTS

The ICS/IUGA mesh complication classification system was found to have poor interrater reliability (κ = 0.15-0.78). The other systems yielded a κ that ranged from 0.18-0.60, but were too general or could only be applied to 68% of the complications.

CONCLUSION

The complexity of the ICS/IUGA mesh complication system, the large number of categories, and lack of clarity likely contribute to its poor interrater reliability.

Persistent pelvic pain following transvaginal mesh surgery: a cause for mesh removal

OBJECTIVE

Persistent pelvic pain after vaginal mesh surgery is an uncommon but serious complication that greatly affects women's quality of life. Our aim was to evaluate various procedures for mesh removal performed at a tertiary referral center in cases of persistent pelvic pain, and to evaluate the ensuing complications and outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study was conducted at the University Hospital of Caen, France, including all patients treated for removal or section of vaginal mesh due to pelvic pain as a primary cause, between January 2004 and September 2009.

RESULTS

Ten patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were diagnosed between 10 months and 3 years after their primary operation. Eight cases followed suburethral sling procedures and two followed mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Patients presented with obturator neuralgia (6), pudendal neuralgia (2), dyspareunia (1), and non-specific pain (1). The surgical treatment to release the mesh included: three cases of extra-peritoneal laparoscopy, four cases of complete vaginal mesh removal, one case of partial mesh removal and two cases of section of the suburethral sling. In all patients with obturator neuralgia, symptoms were resolved or improved, whereas in both cases of pudendal neuralgia the symptoms continued. There were no intra-operative complications. Post-operative Retzius hematoma was observed in one patient after laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh removal in a tertiary center is a safe procedure, necessary in some cases of persistent pelvic pain. Obturator neuralgia seems to be easier to treat than pudendal neuralgia. Early diagnosis is the key to success in prevention of chronic disease.

Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:85-91. [PMID: 21866442 PMCID: PMC3251774 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1536-7]

Introduction and hypothesis

The safety and early efficacy of a new technique to treat cystocele and/or concomitant apical prolapse through a single vaginal incision with a lightweight mesh anchored apically bilaterally to the sacrospinous ligaments is reported.

Methods

Women with anterior compartment and/or apical prolapse ≥stage II underwent repair through a single anterior vaginal wall incision with the Anterior Elevate System (AES). The technique utilizes a lightweight (24 g/m²) type I mesh anchored to the sacrospinous ligaments via two mesh arms with small self-fixating tips. The bladder neck portion of the graft is anchored to the obturator internus with similar self-fixating tips. The apical portion of the graft is adjustable to vaginal length prior to locking in place. Outcome measures included prolapse degree at last follow-up visit, intra/post-operative complications, and QOL assessments.

Results

Sixty patients were implanted with average follow-up of 13.4 months (range 3–24 months). Mean pre-op Ba was +2.04 ± 1.3 and C −2.7 ± 2.9. Average blood loss was 47 cc and average hospital stay was 23 h. Sixty-two percent of patients had concomitant sling for SUI. Mean post-op Ba is −2.45 ± 0.9 and C −8.3 ± 0.9. There was no statistical difference in pre- to post-op TVL. Objective cure rate at current follow-up is 91.7% (≤stage 1). To date, there have been no mesh extrusions. No patients have reported significant buttock or leg pain. No patients have required surgical revision for any reason.

Conclusion

The AES is a minimally invasive technique to treat anterior compartment and/or apical prolapse through a single vaginal incision. Initial results show the procedure to be safe and early efficacy is promising. Longer-term follow-up is ongoing.