Challenging the Myth: Transvaginal Mesh is Not Associated with Carcinogenesis

To mesh or not mesh "apical prolapse," that is the question!

Surgical approaches for pelvic organ prolapse have evolved over the last 30 years and is a popular topic for debate, particularly when discussing apical prolapse. Transvaginal native tissue repairs remain the mainstay of POP surgeries, however, transabdominal approaches continue to evolve. Use of interposition material, such as synthetic polypropylene mesh, is the standard when performing an abdominal sacrocolpopexy, however, use of autologous fascia can be considered. This debate article provides an overview of this subject and highlights the value of different approaches to apical prolapse. The authors were asked to support their approach in various scenarios including:extremes of age, prior hysterectomy and intact uterus, desire to avoid mesh, sexual activity, and presence of comorbidities. In discussing common patient scenarios, ultimate decision making on specific POP surgeries is determined by patient preference and goals.

Development of a coordinated registry network for pelvic organ prolapse technologies

Objectives

The accumulation of data through a prospective, multicenter Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) could be a robust and cost-effective way to gather real-world evidence on the performance of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) technologies for device-based and intervention-based studies. To develop the CRN, a group of POP experts consisting of representatives from professional societies, the Food and Drug Administration, academia, industry, and the patient community, was convened to discuss the role and feasibility of the CRN and to identify the core data elements important to assess POP technologies.

Design

A Delphi method approach was employed to achieve consensus on a core minimum dataset for the CRN. A series of surveys were sent to the panel and answered by each expert anonymously and individually. Results from the surveys were collected, collated, and analyzed by the study design team from Weill Cornell Medicine. Questions for the next round were based on the analysis process and discussed with group members via conference call. This process was repeated twice over a 6-month time period during which consensus was achieved.

Results

Twenty-one experts participated in the effort and proposed 120 data elements. Participation rates in the first and second round of the Delphi survey were 95.2% and 71.4%, respectively. The working group reached final consensus among responders on 90 data elements capturing relevant general medical and surgical history, procedure and discharge, short-term and long-term follow-up, device factors, and surgery and surgeon factors.

Conclusions

The CRN successfully developed a set of core data elements to support the study of POP technologies through convening an expert panel on POP technologies and using the Delphi method. These standardized data elements have the potential to influence patient and provider decisions about treatments and include important outcomes related to efficacy and safety.

Outcomes after laparoscopic removal of retropubic midurethral slings for chronic pain

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Midurethral slings (MUS) are an established treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with good objective outcomes and low rates of complications. However, large population-based registry studies highlighted long-term complications from polypropylene slings including erosion, dyspareunia and chronic pain. With recent highly negative media coverage, many women are presenting with chronic pain attributed to the mesh to request complete removal. The available literature provides limited evidence on safety, symptom resolution and incontinence following MUS removal.

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent laparoscopic removal of MUS mesh at our hospital between 2011 and 2016. We extracted data from medical records to assess operative safety and contacted all patients by questionnaire that incorporated pain scales, symptom severity and satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 56 women were assessed. Removal occurred at a median of 44 months following sling insertion (range 3-192). Mean operative time was 74 min (range 44-132). Two patients were returned to theatre (one at 24 hours and one at 14 days) to evacuate a retropubic haematoma, but no visceral injuries occurred. The median inpatient stay was 2 days (range 1-7). Of the 46% of patients who returned the questionnaire (n = 26), 88% said they would recommend the procedure. There was a median 6-point decrease in pain scores (10-point numerical scale, p < 0.0001); 44.6% reported worsening SUI, more common with removal of the suburethral mesh [odds ratio (OR) 10.72 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-104].

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic removal of MUS is feasible and effective but carries a risk of worsening SUI.