Vaginal mesh update

Application of Acellular Dermal Matrix in Gynaecology—A Current Review

The aim of our study is to draw attention to the multitude of applications of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in the surgical treatment of urogynaecological disorders, such as reduction in the reproductive organs, and in reconstructive gynaecology. Despite the existence of numerous operational methods and materials, the effectiveness of transvaginal operation is still insufficient. Native tissue operations are often not durable enough, while operations with synthetic materials have numerous side effects, such as infections, hematomas, vaginal erosion, or dyspareunia. Hence, the search continues for a different material with a better efficacy and safety profile than those previously mentioned. It seems that ADM can meet these requirements and be a useful material for urogynaecological surgery. Key words related to the usage of ADM in gynaecological reconstructive surgery were used to search relevant databases (NCBI MedLine, Clinical Key, Clinicaltrials.gov). This manuscript is based on 43 literature sources, 28 (65.11%) of which were released after 2016. Older sources are cited for the purpose of presenting basic science, or other important issues related to the manuscript. ADM seems to be an ideal material for urogynaecological and reconstructive surgery. It has high durability, and thus high effectiveness. Moreover, it does not have the side effects typical for synthetic materials. There are no reports of material rejection, erosion or dyspareunia directly related to the presence of the mesh. Due to the difficulties in obtaining ADM and the need to perform additional tests, this material is not common in routine clinical practice. Therefore, the number of cases and the size of the research groups are insufficient to clearly define the potential of mesh from biological tissue. However, the results are so promising that it is worth considering a wider introduction to the use of this material. Our hope is that increasing clinicians’ awareness of this topic will lead to more studies comparing methods using native tissues or synthetic materials and those using ADM.

Wound dehiscence prevalence and relationship with prosthetic material extrusion in women underwent anterior colpotomy

Aim:

To assess the prevalence of anterior vaginal wall dehiscence in women who underwent anterior vaginal wall colpotomy for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and to evaluate the influence of suture materials and techniques on wound dehiscence.

Materials and Methods:

This multicenter, prospective study enrolled naïve women for urogynecological surgery affected by anterior vaginal wall defect or stress urinary incontinence. Performed surgical procedures were anterior vaginal wall repair (AVWR) with native tissue (N-AVWR) or polypropylene mesh (M-AVWR), trans-obturator polypropylene in-out middle urethral sling (MUS). Used suture materials were Vicryl 2-0, Vicryl Rapide 2-0, and Monocryl 3-0. Suture techniques were running interlocking or interrupted. Follow-up was performed daily during hospitalization and in outpatient clinic after 10–14, 30 days, and after 3 months.

Results:

A total of 1139 patients were enrolled. AVWR were 790: 89.1% N-AVWR, and 10.9% M-AVWR. Polypropylene MUS were 349. Women with prosthetic implantation were 38.2%, while 61.8% had native tissue repair. Overall Vicryl was used in 53.9%, Vicryl Rapide in 37.4%, and Monocryl in 8.7%. Overall running interlocking sutures were 66.5%, while interrupted were 33.5%. Overall wound dehiscence prevalence was 0.9% (10/1139). Wound dehiscence rate of 0.6% (5/790) was documented in AVWR: 0.3% (2/704) in N-AVWR, and 3.5% (3/86) in M-AVWR. Among women underwent MUS, 1.4% (5/349) showed wound dehiscence. In patients who underwent prosthetic surgery, the overall dehiscence prevalence was 1.8% (8/435). A statistically significant higher rate of wound dehiscence was found in women with implanted prosthetic materials.

Discussion:

We reported for the first time the prevalence of wound dehiscence in females who underwent colpotomy for AVWR or MUS. Wound dehiscence occurrence was low, but non-negligible. We found that this complication was poorly associated to the suture methods and materials, while prosthetic material represented a risk factor for wound healing.

Long-term functional outcomes following mesh-augmented posterior vaginal prolapse repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term patient-centered functional outcomes following posterior vaginal wall repair using mesh implants.

METHOD

The present prospective telephone interview study enrolled a cohort of women who had undergone posterior vaginal wall repair with mesh between January 1, 2006 and February 28, 2009, at a single center in Israel. Patients were asked to report long-term outcomes, and demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative follow-up data were retrieved from patients' medical files. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to asses associations between baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 102 patients were contacted, with 80 (78.4%) at 61-83months after surgery agreeing to participate. A recurrence of prolapse symptoms was reported by 14 patients (18%) (12 required a corrective procedure), mesh had been removed from two patients owing to erosion/extrusion, and two others had undergone removal of granulation tissue. Long-term, bothersome symptoms were reported by 13 (16%) patients. Parity and previous hysterectomy were associated with lower odds of long-term adverse outcomes, and the location of the apical (C/D) pelvic organ prolapse quantification point and a change in its position following surgery were associated with increased odds of adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The long-term adverse-outcome rate was low for patients who underwent posterior vaginal mesh augmentation. These results highlight the importance of apical support for good long-term functional outcomes.

Attitudes toward transvaginal mesh among patients in a urogynecology practice

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

There has been increasing media attention regarding transvaginal mesh (TVM). We hypothesized that new urogynecology patients have limited knowledge and negative opinions of TVM.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to all new patients presenting to the Mt Auburn Hospital urogynecology practice from 1 November 2012 to 31 January 2013. A total of 146 patients completed the questionnaire. The survey was designed to elicit information on participants' knowledge and opinions about TVM and knowledge about recent FDA safety communications. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Analyses were restricted to the 77 women who had either heard of TVM or were unsure if they had heard of TVM. A minority (32.5 %) of these women correctly defined TVM, and 33.8 % had a negative impression of TVM. Respondents obtained their information on TVM from the media (48.1 %), the Internet (24.7 %), family or friends (22.1 %), and health care providers (18.2 %). The majority (71.4 %) agreed that they needed more information about TVM before making any decisions about using it to treat their condition. Nearly one quarter of respondents (23.4 %) agreed that they would not want their doctor to use TVM on them for any reason. When asked about recent FDA communications, 27.3 % of patients correctly responded that the FDA had released a safety communication regarding TVM.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants had limited knowledge of TVM; however, only a minority had negative opinions. Given our findings, it is important that providers spend more time during the consent process explaining TVM and its risks and benefits as a treatment option.

Postoperative pain outcomes after transvaginal mesh revision

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Although the current literature discusses mesh complications including pain, as well as suggesting different techniques for removing mesh, there is little literature regarding pain outcomes after surgical removal or revision. The purpose of this study is to determine if surgical removal or revision of vaginal mesh improves patient's subjective complaints of pelvic pain associated with original placement of mesh.

METHODS

After obtaining approval from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board, a retrospective review of female patients with pain secondary to previous mesh placement who underwent excision or revision of vaginal mesh from January 2000 to August 2012 was performed. Patient age, relevant medical history including menopause status, previous hysterectomy, smoking status, and presence of diabetes, fibromyalgia, interstitial cystitis, and chronic pelvic pain, was obtained. Patients' postoperative pain complaints were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 481 patients who underwent surgery for mesh revision, removal or urethrolysis, 233 patients met our inclusion criteria. One hundred and sixty-nine patients (73 %) reported that their pain improved, 19 (8 %) reported that their pain worsened, and 45 (19 %) reported that their pain remained unchanged after surgery. Prior history of chronic pelvic pain was associated with increased risk of failure of the procedure to relieve pain (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.12-0.64, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Excision or revision of vaginal mesh appears to be effective in improving patients' pain symptoms most of the time. Patients with a history of chronic pelvic pain are at an increased risk of no improvement or of worsening pain.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This study evaluates the long-term results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. In a prior publication, we demonstrated that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a safe method with excellent anatomical results and low recurrence rates after a 12-month follow-up. This study now evaluates the long-term objectives and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy after 5 years (mean).

METHODS

From 2003 to 2007, a prospective study enrolling 101 patients was conducted to evaluate laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. The long-term results were assessed postoperatively after 5 years by gynecological examinations, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system and quality of life assessments using validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients received a full clinical follow-up exam between July and September 2011, and 17 patients were assessed by questionnaires only. Altogether, six anatomical recurrences in the anterior, four in the posterior, and one in the apical compartment were found during the 5 years after surgery; 83.8 % of patients had no prolapse in any compartment or stage 0 prolapse according to the International Continence Society (ICS) classification. The total reoperation rate was 3.5 %. Two mesh erosions into the bladder occurred, though no vaginal erosion occurred. The preoperative quality of life index improved from 5.6 to 9.1 (12 months) and 8.3 (60 months) postoperatively, resulting in a subjective cure rate of 95.3 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy has demonstrated excellent anatomical and functional long-term results. With the ongoing debate about the complications of vaginal mesh surgery, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy should be considered a favorable treatment option for patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse

AIM

We compared outcomes for traditional vaginal surgery with uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) versus transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of pelvic organ prolapse cases that occurred between February 2007 and December 2011. Success rates for traditional vaginal repair plus USLS and transvaginal mesh repair were determined.

RESULTS

As compared with traditional surgery (n=81), using mesh (n=90) for stage III or IV prolapse resulted in higher rates of successful treatment. However, mesh repair also resulted in increased intraoperative blood loss and postoperative adverse events, such as pain and dyspareunia.

CONCLUSION

Traditional vaginal repair plus USLS was an improvement on traditional surgery, resulting in a higher anatomical success rate. On the other hand, both intraoperative and postoperative complications in mesh repair could be reduced by protective factors such as the surgeon's experience.

Elongation of textile pelvic floor implants under load is related to complete loss of effective porosity, thereby favoring incorporation in scar plates

Use of textile structures for reinforcement of pelvic floor structures has to consider mechanical forces to the implant, which are quite different to the tension free conditions of the abdominal wall. Thus, biomechanical analysis of textile devices has to include the impact of strain on stretchability and effective porosity. Prolift(®) and Prolift + M(®), developed for tension free conditions, were tested by measuring stretchability and effective porosity applying mechanical strain. For comparison, we used Dynamesh-PR4(®), which was designed for pelvic floor repair to withstand mechanical strain. Prolift(®) at rest showed moderate porosity with little stretchability but complete loss of effective porosity at strain of 4.9 N/cm. Prolift + M(®) revealed an increased porosity at rest, but at strain showed high stretchability, with subsequent loss of effective porosity at strain of 2.5 N/cm. Dynamesh PR4(®) preserved its high porosity even under strain, but as consequence of limited stretchability. Though in tension free conditions Prolift(®) and Prolift + M(®) can be considered as large pore class I meshes, application of mechanical strain rapidly lead to collapse of pores. The loss of porosity at mechanical stress can be prevented by constructions with high structural stability. Assessment of porosity under strain was found helpful to define requirements for pelvic floor devices. Clinical studies have to prove whether devices with high porosity as well as high structural stability can improve the patients' outcome.