Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh

Ten-year surgical complications and mesh erosion of transvaginal Elevate™ mesh for management of pelvic organ prolapse

This study aims to review the surgical complications and mesh erosion with a cohort of patients who underwent Elevate™ mesh repair. This was a single-centre, retrospective study of women undergoing Elevate™ mesh reconstruction between 2006 and 2016. Women who presented with symptomatic prolapse of stage II or above were enrolled. The study outcomes were intra-operative and peri-operative complications (including mesh complications) at six weeks, one year and five years reporting with a standardised communicable method-the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) scale and the Clavien and Dindo Classification. A total number of 350 women had Elevate™ mesh insertion. The mesh exposure rate was 1.1% and the surgical complication rate in our series was low and self-limiting (2% were Dindo grade 3). With the low morbidity and mesh-related complications, Elevate™ mesh should be at least kept as an alternative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Transvaginal mesh repair surgery was popular to treat advanced pelvic organ prolapse 10 years ago. However, after announcement of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) public notification regarding mesh-related complications, particularly mesh exposure, use of transvaginal mesh and its safety have been scrutinised. Despite the increasing challenging and difficult medico-legal climate, several studies on second generation mesh kits, such as Elevate™ have shown favourable outcomes with low complication rates including our group.What do the results of this study add? In this paper, the surgical complications and mesh erosion of Transvaginal mesh was reported in a quantified communicable method-the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) scale and the Clavien and Dindo Classification. This is significant because it is the largest case studies from a single centre with 350 patients.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study well demonstrated using a standardised way to classify mesh exposure and peri-operative complications which is lacking in the past, while majority studies only focus to discuss on surgical outcome instead of complications. This may make a spark for future research analysis.

Long-term outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall outcomes and complications of transvaginal mesh (TVM) placement for the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with different meshes with a greater than 10-years of follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients with POP who underwent prolapse repair surgery with placement of transvaginal mesh (Prolift kit or self-cut Gynemesh) between January 2005 and December 2010. Baseline of patient characteristics were collected from the patients’ medical records. During follow-up, the anatomical outcomes were evaluated using the POP Quantification system, and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) was used to assess the response of a condition to therapy. Overall postoperative satisfaction was assessed by the following question: “What is your overall postoperative satisfaction, on a scale from 0 to 10?”. Relapse-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

In total, 134 patients were included. With a median 12-year (range 10–15) follow-up, 52 patients (38.8%) underwent TVM surgery with Prolift, and Gynemesh was used 82 (61.2%). 91% patients felt that POP symptom improved based on the PGI-I scores, and most satisfied after operation. The recurrence rates of anterior, apical and posterior compartment prolapse were 5.2%, 5.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. No significant differences in POP recurrence, mesh-associated complications and urinary incontinence were noted between TVM surgery with Prolift versus Gynemesh.

Conclusions

Treatment of POP by TVM surgery exhibited long-term effectiveness with acceptable morbidity. The outcomes of the mesh kit were the same as those for self-cutmesh.

Outcomes of a fixed skeletonised mini mesh implant for pelvic organ prolapse repair with uterine preservation

Mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is complicated, causing erosions, postoperative pain and surgical failure. We hypothesised that reducing the mesh size and fixating it would result in significant cure rates and reduce complication rates. Here, we present the effectiveness of mini mesh implants in POP reconstruction. Sixty women who underwent repair of stage III and IV apical prolapse with cystocele or rectocele using skeletonised mesh implant Seratom PA MR MN® were evaluated. Anatomical outcomes were assessed using modified POP-quantification (POP-Q) staging and functional outcomes were self-reported by patients - one and three months post-operatively. Apical support with anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy was performed, resulting in 96.6% success rate. Follow-up conducted one and three months post-operatively revealed significant improvement on the modified POP-Q (p < .001) and no complaints of dyspareunia. Para-vesicular fixation using a skeletonised mini mesh implant is feasible and effective in POP repair and has low surgical complication risk.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is currently under scrutiny as it may result in erosions, postoperative pain, and surgical failure.What do the results of this study add? The use of an apical support with mini-mesh implants resulted in a 96.6% (58/60) success rate and excellent outcomes at 1- and 3-month follow-up.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Reconstruction using skeletonised and fixated mini-mesh implants may be safe and effective for POP treatment.

Evolution of drug-eluting biomedical implants for sustained drug delivery

In the field of drug delivery, the most commonly used treatments have traditionally been systemically delivered using oral or intravenous administration. The problems associated with this type of delivery is that the drug concentration is controlled by first pass metabolism, and therefore may not always remain within the therapeutic window. Implantable drug delivery systems (IDDSs) are an excellent alternative to traditional delivery because they offer the ability to precisely control the drug release, deliver drugs locally to the target tissue, and avoid the toxic side effects often experienced with systemic administration. Since the creation of the first FDA-approved IDDS in 1990, there has been a surge in research devoted to fabricating and testing novel IDDS formulations. The versatility of these systems is evident when looking at the various biomedical applications that utilize IDDSs. This review provides an overview of the history of IDDSs, with examples of the different types of IDDS formulations, as well as looking at current and future biomedical applications for such systems. Though there are still obstacles that need to be overcome, ever-emerging new technologies are making the manufacturing of IDDSs a rewarding therapeutic endeavor with potential for further improvements.

Postoperative pain and perceptions of recuperation after suture- and mesh-based apical sacrospinous ligament suspension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of postoperative pain after suture- or mesh-based sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS).

METHODS

In a retrospective study, data were reviewed from patients who underwent suture- or mesh-based SSLS at a center in Skokie, IL, USA, between 2006 and 2011. The primary outcome was self-reported postoperative pain scores (range 0-10) on the day of surgery (day 0) and 1 day later (day 1).

RESULTS

Overall, 90 women were included in the study: 66 underwent mesh-based SSLS and 24 underwent suture-based SSLS. Day-0 mean pain score was 4.65 ± 1.57 in the mesh group and 5.24 ± 1.44 in the suture group (adjusted P=0.159). Day-1 mean pain score was 4.06 ± 1.78 in the mesh group and 4.31 ± 1.21 in the suture group (adjusted P=0.596).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative pain did not differ between patients undergoing suture-based and those undergoing mesh-based SSLS. These observations should be considered in preoperative counseling of patients.