Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Comment

Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In light of all the recent controversy regarding the use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, we did a retrospective review of the evidence-based outcomes and complications for its use.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 18 of the most recent studies in the last 5 years were selected. Studies selected were prospective randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse for this review. Additionally, Cochrane review and meta-analysis of outcomes and complication were also analyzed. In terms of outcomes, the definition of successful surgery is currently being debated. Synthetic mesh provides superior anatomical and subjective cure rates compared with native tissue repair. Success rates varied greatly depending on the nature of prolapse and surgical approach. Furthermore, recurrence rates for mesh-based surgery are significantly lower than that for native tissue repair. The main unique complication of mesh is exposure and was reported in a mean of 11.4% of patients, with 6.8% of patients requiring surgical partial excision of mesh.

SUMMARY

Mesh significantly improves anatomical outcomes with sacrocolpopexy and vaginal repair. Mesh does create the unique complication which can be reduced with training and proper patient selection. Further development of better materials is vital rather than reverting to tissue-based repair. Ultimately, the decision to use mesh should be based upon a patient's personal goals and preferences after an informed conversation with her physician.