Cadaveric fascia lata

Biologic grafts for pelvic organ prolapse repairs: what have we learned in the last 20 years?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The ideal graft material for the augmentation of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has yet to be discovered. While synthetic mesh offers durable repairs this can be at the expense of mesh complications. Biologic grafts have been considered an alternative. This chapter reviews biologic graft materials as applied to POP surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The heterogeneity of available graft materials and definitions of success in POP literature make comparisons difficult. There may be utility in the augmentation of apical prolapse with autologous grafts. There is also modest evidence to support anterior wall augmentation with biologic grafts. However, a 2024 Cochrane review concluded there is not enough evidence to support routine use of grafts for transvaginal repairs.

SUMMARY

Biologic grafts can be considered in certain cases. There continues to be a need for finding the ideal "graft-patient" combination. The field particularly needs more robust research in the recurrent POP patient population.

Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: how can we do better?

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are major health issues that detrimentally impact the quality of life of millions of women worldwide. Surgical repair is an effective and durable treatment for both conditions. Over the past two decades there has been a trend to enforce or reinforce repairs with synthetic and biological materials. The determinants of surgical outcome are many, encompassing the physical and mechanical properties of the material used, and individual immune responses, as well surgical and constitutional factors. Of the current biomaterials in use none represents an ideal. Biomaterials that induce limited inflammatory response followed by constructive remodelling appear to have more long term success than biomaterials that induce chronic inflammation, fibrosis and encapsulation. In this review we draw upon published animal and human studies to characterize the changes biomaterials undergo after implantation and the typical host responses, placing these in the context of clinical outcomes.