Current state of transvaginal meshes by resolution of pelvic organ prolapse

Česká verzia

Authors: J. Jírová; M. Pán
Authors place of work: Porodnicko-gynekologické oddělení Oblastní nemocnice, Mladá Boleslav, primář MUDr. M. Pán
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2017; 82(1): 72-78

Summary

Objective:
Treatment of pelvic organs prolapse with transvaginal mesh kits represents nowadays a widespread surgical method, which partially replaced classic operations due to high success rate and low count of recurrences. Just like any other surgical method, the placement of transvaginal mesh is linked with occurrence of complications. In this article we attempt to review the more and less known facts about transvaginal meshes, their efficacy, count of recurrence and the spectrum of complications and we try to compare this technique with traditional surgical methods used to treat pelvic organs prolapse (without graft materials).

Design:
Review.

Setting:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional hospital Mladá Boleslav a.s., Mladá Boleslav.

Methods:
Overview of the results of recent studies published in the Czech and English language in recent years.

Results:
Pelvic organ prolapse repair with vaginal mesh has generally lower count of relapse especially in patients with wide genital hiatal area and with major levator ani avulsion. The spectrum of complications differs from classical techniques because of the presence of synthetic nonabsorbable material. Some of the specific complications we did not encounter during classical operations include vaginal mesh erosion, infection of mesh associated with chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, protrusion of the mesh into the closest organs or the rejection and progressive extrusion of the mesh.

Conclusion:
Primary enthusiasm has now been replaced with worries of major complications. Future tasks should therefore be aimed at minimizing the rate of complications associated with transvaginal meshes. Except using well-known and safe materials and providing specialized training of physicians for each mesh implantation technique, other precautions outlined in this article should help, such as a closer specification of indication for the application of transvaginal mesh.

Keywords:
transvaginal mesh, efficacy, recurrence, complications, risk factors

Zdroje

1. Altman, D., Falconer, C. Perioperative morbidity using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 109, 2, Pt 1, p. 303–308.

2. Altman, D., Vayrynen, T., Engh, ME., et al. Short-term outcome after transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008, 19, 6, p. 787–793.

3. Altman, D., Elmer, C., Kiilholma, P., et al. Sexual dysfunction after trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 113, 1, p. 127–133.

4. Altman, D., Vayrynen, T., Engh, ME., et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med, 2011, 364, 19, p. 1826–1836.

5. Amid, P. Classification of biomaterials and their related complication in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia, 1997, 1, p. 15–21.

6. Bako, A., Dhar, R. Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2009, 20, 1, p. 103–111.

7. de Leval, J. Novel surgical technique for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: transobturator vaginal tape inside-out. Eur Urol, 2003, 44, 6, p. 724–730.

8. 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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2007, 18, 1, p. 73–79.

9. Delorme, E. [Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women]. Prog Urol, 2001, 11, 6, p. 1306–1313.

10. Delroy, CA., Castro Rde, A., Dias, M., et al. The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J, 2013, 24, 11, p. 1899–1907.

11. Dietz, HP., Hankins, KJ., Wong, V. The natural history of cystocele recurrence. Int Urogynecol J, 2014, 25, 8, p. 1053–1057.

12. El Haddad, R., Martan, A., Masata, J., et al. [Long-term review on posterior colporrhaphy with levator ani muscles plication and incorporating a Vypro II mesh]. Ces Gynekol, 2009, 74, 4, p. 282–285.

13 El Haddad, R., Svabik, K., Masata, J., et al. Women‘s quality of life and sexual function after transvaginal anterior repair with mesh insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2013, 167, 1, p. 110–113.

14. Ellington, DR., Richter, HE. The role of vaginal mesh procedures in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in view of complication risk. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2013, 2013, 356–360.

15. Elmer, C., Blomgren, B., Falconer, C., et al. Histological inflammatory response to transvaginal polypropylene mesh for pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Urol, 2009, 181, 3, p. 1189–1195.

16. Falagas, ME., Velakoulis, S., Iavazzo, C., et al. Mesh-related infections after pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2007, 134, 2, p. 147–156.

17. Falagas, ME., Athanasiou, S., Iavazzo, C., et al. Urinary tract infections after pelvic floor gynecological surgery: prevalence and effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis. A systematic review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008, 19, 8, p. 1165–1172.

18. Fialkow, MF., Newton, KM., Weiss, NS. Incidence of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse 10 years following primary surgical management: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008, 19, 11, p. 1483–1487.

19. Freeman, RM., Pantazis, K., Thomson, A., et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J, 2013, 24, 3, p. 377–384.

20. Freeman, RM., Pantazis, K., Thomson, A., et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Reply to comment. Int Urogynecol J, 2014, 25, 3, p. 437–438.

21. Gabriel, B., Nassif, J., Barata, S., et al. Twenty years of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: where are we now? Int Urogynecol J, 2011, 22, 9, p. 1165–1169.

22. Ganatra, AM., Rozet, F., Sanchez-Salas, R., et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol, 2009, 55, 5, p. 1089–1103.

23. Halaska, M., Maxova, K., Sottner, O., et al. A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 207, 4, p. 301 e301–307.

24. 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, p. 2–12.

25. Hinoul, P., Jacquetin, B. The total (not the anterior) vaginal mesh concept should be considered when apical vaginal support is the issue. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 202, 4, p. e9–10; author reply e10.

26. Chu, LC., Chuang, FC., Kung, FT., et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not? Int Urogynecol J, 2012, 23, 1, p. 79–84.

27. Mašata, J., Poislová, M., Kobilková, J., et al. Comparison of the incidence of early postoperative infections between patients using synthetic mesh and those undergoing traditional pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. Prague Med. Rep., 2013, 114, 2, p. 81–91.

28. Jacquetin, B. [Toward the acceptance of using vaginal prosthetic reinforcement implants: a new step?]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris), 2010, 39, 7, p. 517–519.

29. Jacquetin, B., Cosson, M., Debodinance, P., et al. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 116, 6, p. 1457–1458; author reply 1458.

30. Jacquetin, B., Fatton, B., Rosenthal, C., et al. Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J, 2010, 21, 12, p. 1455–1462.

31. Karagulle, E., Yildirim, E., Turk, E., et al. Mesh invasion of the rectum: an unusual late complication of rectal prolapse repair. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2006, 21, 7, p. 724–727.

32. Lewicky-Gaupp, C., McGuire, EJ., Fenner, DE. Multiple perineal abscesses and sinus tracts as a complication of vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2009, 20, 9, p. 1137–1139.

33. Liang, R., Abramowitch, S., Knight, K., et al. Vaginal degeneration following implantation of synthetic mesh with increased stiffness. BJOG, 2013, 120, 2, p. 233–243.

34. Maher, C. ICI 2012: pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J, 2013, 24, 11, p. 1781.

36. Mamy, L., Letouzey, V., Lavigne, JP., et al. Correlation between shrinkage and infection of implanted synthetic meshes using an animal model of mesh infection. Int Urogynecol J, 2011, 22, 1, p. 47–52.

37. Martan, A., Svabik, K., Masata, J. [The incidence and prevalence of complications after urogynaecological and reconstructive pelvic floor prosthetic surgery and management of these complications in women]. Ces Gynek, 2007, 72, 6, p. 410–415.

38. Masata, J., Martan, A., Poislova, M., et al. A comparison of the incidence of early postoperative infections between patients using synthetic mesh and those undergoing traditional pelvic reconstructive surgical procedures. Prague Med Rep, 2013, 114, 2, p. 81–91.

39. Masata, J., Dundr, P., Martan, A. Actinomyces infection appearing five years after trocar-guided transvaginal mesh prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J, 2014,

40. Model, AN., Shek, KL., Dietz, HP. Levator defects are associated with prolapse after pelvic floor surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2010, 153, 2, p. 220–223.

41. Ostergard, DR. Degradation, infection and heat effects on polypropylene mesh for pelvic implantation: what was known and when it was known. Int Urogynecol J, 2011, 22, 7, p. 771–774.

42. Paek, J., Lee, M., Kim, B.W., et al. Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J, 2016, 27, 4, p. 593–599.

43. Ridgeway, B., Chen, CC., Paraiso, MF. The use of synthetic mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 51, 1, p. 136–152.

44. Rodrigo, N., Wong, V., Shek, KL., et al. The use of 3-dimensional ultrasound of the pelvic floor to predict recurrence risk after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2014, 54, 3, p. 206–211.

45. Sarlos, D., Brandner, S., Kots, L., et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome - a prospective study with 101 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008, 19, 10, p. 1415–1422.

46. Sartore, A., Zennaro, F., Banco, R. An unusual long-term complication of transobturator polypropylene mesh. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2014, 290, 6, p. 1273–1274.

47. Sun, Z., Zhu, L., Xu, T., et al. Effects of preoperative vaginal estrogen therapy for the incidence of mesh complication after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in postmenopausal women: is it helpful or a myth? A 1-year randomized controlled trial. Menopause, 2016, 23, 7, p. 740–748.

48. Svabik, K., Martan, A., Masata, J., et al. Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation-evidence of mesh contraction or folding? Int Urogynecol J, 2011, 22, 5, p. 529–533.

49. Svabik, K., Martan, A., Masata, J., et al. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 43, 4, p. 365–371.

50. Svabik, K., El Haddad, R., Masata, J., et al. [Correlation of subjective and objective assessment of vaginal prolapse surgery – secondary analysis of randomized controlled study in patients with pelvic floor injury treated with vaginal mesh or with sacrospinous ligament fixation]. Ces Gynek, 2015, 80, 5, p. 351–354.

51. 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, 11, p. 1395–1404.

52. Ulmsten, U., Petros, P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol, 1995, 29, 1, p. 75–82.

53. Vergeldt, TF., Notten, KJ., Weemhoff, M., et al. Levator hiatal area as a risk factor for cystocele recurrence after surgery: a prospective study. BJOG, 2015, 122, 8, p. 1130–1137.

54. Vergeldt, TF., Weemhoff, M., IntHout, J., et al. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J, 2015, 26, 11, p. 1559–1573.

55. Wattiez, A., Mashiach, R., Donoso, M. Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 15, 4, p. 315–319.

56. Weemhoff, M., Vergeldt, TF., Notten, K., et al. Avulsion of puborectalis muscle and other risk factors for cystocele recurrence: a 2-year follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J, 2012, 23, 1, p. 65–71.

57. Wong, V., Shek, KL., Goh, J., et al. Cystocele recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy with and without mesh use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2014, 172, p. 131–135.