Dyspareunia and chronic pelvic pain after polypropylene mesh augmentation for transvaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse

From thigh to pelvis: female genital prolapse repair with an autologous semitendinosus tendon transplant : Data of the German multicenter trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The use of synthetic mesh for prolapse and incontinence surgery is discussed controversially and in several countries is either no longer used or permissible. Previous approaches with autologous tissue did not show from a patient´s perspective convincing long-term results. As there have been repeatedly significant complications with synthetic mesh, a new approach is urgently needed. During orthopedics and trauma surgeries, tendons from the thigh have been used for decades to replace cruciate ligament. The procedure of tendon removal from the thigh is fast, easy to learn and morbidity is low. In addition, a long-term durability of the transplant ought to be expected. The objective of this investigation was to show our experience with a semitendinosus tendon instead of a mesh for genital prolapse repair.

METHOD

After the first successful attempts using such tendons in cervicosacropexy and pectopexy in patients with genital prolapse, we initiated a national multicenter study in 2020. Five German hospitals participated in order to determine the feasibility of cervicosacropexy with tendon tissue instead of mesh.

RESULT

Up until now, we have operated and observed 113 patients for at least 6 months and have seen stable results in terms of fixation of the apical compartment. The expected low morbidity at the donor site was also confirmed through subjective assessment of the patients (Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score). Improvement of quality of life was confirmed after the procedure with the Short Form Health Survey 12, Version 2.0. The results of this multicenter study showed that the desired elevation of the apical compartment with tendon tissue can be achieved with low morbidity and without a synthetic mesh.

CONCLUSION

Women with uterine prolapse can be treated minimally invasively and with very low morbidity by using the semitendinosus tendon. The involvement of multiple (five) medical centers confirms that the technique is easy to learn and be transferred to other clinical centers.

Update in Transvaginal Grafts: The Role of Lightweight Meshes, Biologics, and Hybrid Grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

Transvaginal mesh/grafts have been popularized over the past 20 years in an attempt to improve the longevity of traditional vaginal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Several national bodies have concluded that the proposed benefits of mesh/graft implantation are outweighed by the significant increase in surgery complications related to these products. As a consequence mesh products for vaginal POP surgery have been withdrawn from use in many countries. This article is a narrative review of newer mesh and graft products including lightweight polypropylene mesh products, biological grafts, hybrid grafts, and tissue engineered grafts.

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

Safety and efficacy of non-absorbable mesh in contemporary gynaecological surgery

Mesh-augmented pelvic floor surgery evolved to address the limitations of native tissue repair in reconstructive surgery. The development of the synthetic mid-urethral tape signalled a revolution in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, whilst the use of mesh in abdominal apical prolapse repair may confer benefits over native tissue alternatives. However, these procedures can be associated with mesh-specific complications, underlining the need for shared decision-making between physicians and patients prior to mesh surgery.

Transvaginal non-absorbable mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse are associated with a high risk of serious adverse events, leading to withdrawal or restricted use in many countries. Increased scrutiny has led to growing concerns about complications associated with all types of mesh-augmented reconstructive surgery, attracting widespread media attention.

National and international reports have been commissioned examining the safety and efficacy of mesh surgery in gynaecology. They have all highlighted systemic failures in the development, regulation and clinical adoption of medical devices. The widespread application of novel devices prior to the availability of reliable safety and efficacy data, and delayed recognition of adverse events, is of serious concern. Notwithstanding, the available data continue to support a role for mesh augmentation. This review outlines the evolution of gynaecological mesh, the safety and efficacy of pelvic floor surgery using non-absorbable mesh materials, and an overview of specific complications.

To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue with a lifetime risk of undergoing at least one surgical intervention estimated at close to 10%. In the 1990s, the risk of reoperation after primary standard vaginal procedure was estimated to be as high as 30% to 50%. In order to reduce the risk of relapse, gynecological surgeons started to use mesh implants in pelvic organ reconstructive surgery with the emergence of new complications. Recent studies have nevertheless shown that the risk of POP recurrence requiring reoperation is lower than previously estimated, being closer to 10% rather than 30%. The development of mesh surgery - actively promoted by the marketing industry - was tremendous during the past decade, and preceded any studies supporting its benefit for our patients. Randomized trials comparing the use of mesh to native tissue repair in POP surgery have now shown better anatomical but similar functional outcomes, and meshes are associated with more complications, in particular for transvaginal mesh implants. POP is not a life-threatening condition, but a functional problem that impairs quality of life for women. The old adage "primum non nocere" is particularly appropriate when dealing with this condition which requires no treatment when asymptomatic. It is currently admitted that a certain degree of POP is physiological with aging when situated above the landmark of the hymen. Treatment should be individualized and the use of mesh needs to be selective and appropriate. Mesh implants are probably an important tool in pelvic reconstructive surgery, but the ideal implant has yet to be found. The indications for its use still require caution and discernment. This review explores the reasons behind the introduction of mesh augmentation in POP surgery, and aims to clarify the risks, benefits, and the recognized indications for its use.

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.

Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: A systematic review

We reviewed the incidence, predisposing factors, presentation and management of complications related to the use of synthetic mesh in the management of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse repair. Immediate complications, such as bleeding, hematoma, injury to adjacent organs during placement of mesh and complication of voiding dysfunction are not discussed in this review, since they are primarily related to technique. A PubMed search of related articles published in English was done from April 2008 to March 2011. Key words used were urinary incontinence, mesh, complications, midurethral sling, anterior prolapse, anterior vaginal repair, pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginal mesh, vault prolapse, midurethral slings, female stress urinary incontinence, mesh erosion, vaginal mesh complications, and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Since there were very few articles dealing with the management of mesh-related complications in the period covered in the search we extended the search from January 2005 onwards. Articles were selected to fit the scope of the topic. In addition, landmark publications and Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data (FDA website) were included on the present topic. A total of 170 articles were identified. The use of synthetic mesh in sub-urethral sling procedures is now considered the standard for the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Synthetic mesh is being increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. While the incidence of extrusion and erosion with mid-urethral sling is low, the extrusion rate in prolapse repair is somewhat higher and the use in posterior compartment remains controversial. When used through the abdominal approach the extrusion and erosion rates are lower. The management of mesh complication is an individualized approach. The choice of the technique should be based on the type of mesh complication, location of the extrusion and/or erosion, its magnitude, severity and potential recurrence of pelvic floor defect.

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.

Urogenital complaints and female sexual dysfunction. Part 2

INTRODUCTION

Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is common in women with urogenital disorders that occur as a result of pelvic floor muscle and fascial laxity.

AIM

Provide a comprehensive review of FSD as it relates to common urogenital disorders including pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and to discuss the impact of the surgical repair of these disorders on sexual function.

METHODS

Systematic search of the medical literature using a number of related terms including FSD, POP, SUI, surgical repair, graft augmentation, complications, and dyspareunia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Review of the medical literature to identify the relation between FSD and common urogenital disorders in women and to describe appropriate treatment strategies to improve quality of life (QOL) and sexual function.

RESULTS

FSD is common in women with POP and SUI. Treatment options for POP and SUI include behavioral, pharmacological, and surgical methods which can also affect sexual function.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual dysfunction is a common, underestimated complaint in women with POP and SUI. Treatment should be tailored toward improving sexual function and QOL. Surgical correction is generally beneficial but occasionally can result in negative alterations in sexual function. Patient selection and methods used for surgical repair are important factors in determining anatomical and functional success.

[Sexual outcome after pelvic organ prolapse surgery]

Sexual well-being is an important parameter of women's health and quality of live. Sexual disorders may occur in women with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence and also after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Sexual dysfunction after POP or SUI surgery has been poorly documented but new condition specific questionnaires have been developed to help us to better evaluate such consequences. This paper reports updated data and highlights more specifically consequences of surgery with mesh reinforcement which is, currently, an important issue particularly when performing by vaginal approach.

[Sexual outcome after pelvic reconstructive surgery]

Sexual well-being is an important parameter of women's health and quality of live. Sexual disorders may occur in women with pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence and also after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Sexual dysfunction after POP or SUI surgery has been poorly documented but new condition specific questionnaires have been developed to help us to better evaluate such consequences. This paper reports available data and highlights more specifically consequences of surgery with mesh reinforcement which is, currently, an important issue particularly when performing by vaginal approach.

Does the Prolift system cause dyspareunia?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the de novo dyspareunia rate with the Prolift procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

All Prolift cases performed between August 2005 and August 2007 were evaluated. The rate of de novo dyspareunia was calculated by chart review. Type and degree of dyspareunia were assessed by self-administered questionnaire. Demographics, use of hormone therapy, failure rate, and willingness to have the surgery again were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The rate of de novo dyspareunia was 16.7%. Over 75% of patients with de novo dyspareunia described the pain as mild or moderate. Most described dyspareunia with insertion. Eighty-three percent of respondents with de novo dyspareunia would have the procedure done again.

CONCLUSION

The Prolift is associated with a 17% de novo dyspareunia rate. Despite this, most would have the surgery done again.

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

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the complications, treatments, and outcomes in patients choosing to undergo removal of mesh previously placed with a mesh procedural kit.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of transvaginal mesh for mesh-related complications during a 3-year period at Cleveland Clinic. At last follow-up, patients reported degree of pain, level of improvement, sexual activity, and continued symptoms.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients underwent removal of mesh during the study period. Indications for removal included chronic pain (6/19), dyspareunia (6/19), recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (8/19), mesh erosion (12/19), and vesicovaginal fistula (3/19), with most patients (16/19) citing more than 1 reason. There were few complications related to the mesh removal. Most patients reported significant relief of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Mesh removal can be technically difficult but appears to be safe with few complications and high relief of symptoms, although some symptoms can persist.

[What about transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse? Review of the literature since the HAS (French Health Authorities) report]

The French Health Authorities' (HAS) report of November 2006 concluded that the use of mesh at the time of transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) should be limited to clinical research. This review intends to analyse and comment the recent data on this topic. A review on PubMed, on a personal database and actualisation until May 2008 has been performed choosing French or English language series concerning prolapse surgery with mesh disposed by the vaginal route. It includes six randomised controlled trials comparing transvaginal repair of POP with or without mesh: four about cystocele, one about rectocele and one about apical prolapse. Both surgical techniques and recurrence criteria are poorly standardised. The four randomised trials focusing on cystocele repair support the anatomical superiority of techniques using mesh, with similar functional results with or without mesh reinforcement. In the other indications, the results remain unclear or controversial. According to the randomised trials, the complications rate, except mesh exposure, is similar with and without mesh. However there are some specific complications when using mesh, such as mesh infection, mesh exposure or shrinkage and visceral extrusion. We recommend using vaginal reinforcement mesh with specific care in selected patients and we suggest some guidelines to be proposed for consensus at concerned French scientific societies.