Vaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, friend or foe: a comprehensive review
- PMID: 19252757
- PMCID: PMC5823225
- DOI: 10.1100/tsw.2009.19
Vaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, friend or foe: a comprehensive review
Abstract
Graft use in vaginal prolapse surgery has become more common secondary to high failure rates seen with traditional repairs. Mesh has been shown to be successful when suspending the upper portion of the vagina with sacralcolpopexy and its use vaginally isi n an attempt to reproduce those results seen from the more invasive abdominal approach. A recent Cochrane review has supported its use in the anterior compartment vaginally as lower failure rates have been shown. Vaginal mesh "kits" have been developed in an attempt to make these surgeries less invasive, more standardized, and easier to perform. One of the problems that does seem to be emerging is the thought that, just because these procedures are now being produced in "kits", they can be completed by any surgeon. This may not hold true, as these are still advanced techniques that require advanced pelvic surgery skills and, therefore, it is up to surgeons to also understand this and the limitations of these procedures. The current paper reviews the history of the development of mesh kits, the techniques utilized, and the data that have been published to date on results and complications, and recommendations on how to avoid these complications. Although initial studies are encouraging, more will need to be completed prior to the recommendations of general use of these kits in all prolapse patients. We need to have further investigation on proper patient selection, we must continue research on graft composition, and we must continue to develop techniques to minimize complications of needle passage or mesh placement. Even after we gain this knowledge, it will still require advanced surgical skills to complete these types of surgeries, and to help minimize complications and maximize results.
Similar articles
-
[Current state of transvaginal meshes by resolution of pelvic organ prolapse].Ceska Gynekol. 2017 Winter;82(1):72-78. Ceska Gynekol. 2017. PMID: 28252314 Review. Czech.
-
Sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse in the era of vaginal mesh kits.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;23(5):391-5. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32834ac743. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011. PMID: 21836503 Review.
-
Transvaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011 Feb;33(2):168-174. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34804-6. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011. PMID: 21352637
-
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review.Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(1):3-12. doi: 10.1002/nau.20542. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008. PMID: 18092333 Review.
-
Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Apr;30(4):545-555. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3702-7. Epub 2018 Jul 9. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. PMID: 29987345 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Indications, contraindications, and complications of mesh in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jun;56(2):276-88. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e318282f2e8. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013. PMID: 23563869 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 May;24(5):749-58. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2. Epub 2012 Aug 29. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 22930216 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Oct;23(10):1379-86. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1744-9. Epub 2012 May 10. Int Urogynecol J. 2012. PMID: 22572917
-
Do we need meshes in pelvic floor reconstruction?World J Urol. 2012 Aug;30(4):479-86. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0794-9. Epub 2011 Nov 16. World J Urol. 2012. PMID: 22083097 Review.
-
Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment.Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Mar;26(3):335-42. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2501-z. Epub 2014 Sep 9. Int Urogynecol J. 2015. PMID: 25199496 Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources