Mesh inlay, mesh kit or native tissue repair for women having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery: randomised controlled trial (PROSPECT)

Precision in Practice: The Critical Role of Mesh and Procedure Type Specification in Urogynecological Surgeries and Research

Recently, the debate surrounding the use of mesh in urogynecological procedures has intensified, leading to FDA warnings and heightened safety concerns. This clinical opinion emphasizes the vital need to specify mesh types in these procedures, drawing attention to the risk profiles and clinical outcomes associated with various meshes and the procedures that utilize them. A significant issue identified in contemporary literature is the tendency to group diverse mesh types under the same umbrella, disregarding their unique characteristics and applications. We describe the range of mesh types, their application routes, and associated complications, highlighting the risks of this nonspecific approach to patient safety and informed decision making. We critically examine the generalization of mesh terminology in clinical and research dialogues. Concluding with specific recommendations for health care providers and researchers, the paper advocates for a more nuanced understanding and communication in the field, ultimately aiming to improve patient care and safety in urogynecological practice.

Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this document is to update the 2013 AUGS Position Statement based on subsequent decisions made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, published clinical data, and relevant society and national guidelines related to the use of surgical mesh. Urogynecologists specialize in treating pelvic floor disorders, such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary incontinence, and have been actively involved and engaged in the national and international discussions and research on the use of surgical mesh in the treatment of POP and stress urinary incontinence. In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered manufacturers of transvaginally placed mesh kits for prolapse to stop selling and distributing their devices, stating that the data submitted did not provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Evidence supports the use of mesh in synthetic midurethral sling and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) remains opposed to any restrictions that ban currently available surgical options performed by qualified and credentialed surgeons on appropriately informed patients with pelvic floor disorders. The AUGS supports the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recommendations that surgeons thoroughly inform patients seeking treatment for POP about the risks and benefits of all potential treatment options, including nonsurgical options, native tissue vaginal repairs, or abdominally placed mesh. There are certain clinical situations where surgeons may assert that the use and potential benefit of transvaginal mesh for prolapse outweighs the risk of other routes/types of surgery or of not using mesh. The AUGS recommends that surgeons utilize a shared decision-making model in the decision-making process regarding surgical options, including use of transvaginally placed mesh.

Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low-certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder-related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.

Safety and Efficacy of Vaginal Implants in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: A Meta-analysis of 161 536 Patients

CONTEXT

Among the many surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), better results can be achieved with the use of vaginal implants. However, owing to perceived complications, vaginal implant surgeries have been restricted or banned in many countries.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real value of vaginal implants in POP surgery and compare the safety and efficacy of operations with and without implants.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic search was performed in three medical databases. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the safety and efficacy of vaginal POP surgery with implants versus native tissue were included. Safety outcomes were defined as different types of complications (functional and non-functional) and reoperations for complications. Efficacy outcomes were parameters of anatomical success and the rate of reoperations due to recurrence. A multivariate meta-analysis framework was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) with simultaneous control for study correlations and estimation of multiple correlated outcomes.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 50 comparative studies in the analysis. Rates of reoperation for complications (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.20-3.87), vaginal erosion (OR 14.05, 95% CI 9.07-21.77), vaginal bleeding (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.25-2.23), and de novo stress urinary incontinence (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18-1.75) were significantly higher in the implant group. Rates of anatomical success (OR 3.22, 95% CI 2.06-5.0) and reoperation for recurrence (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.85) were superior in the implant group.

CONCLUSIONS

POP surgeries with vaginal implants are more effective than surgeries without implants, with acceptable complication rates. Therefore, the complete prohibition of implants for POP surgeries should be reconsidered.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared vaginal surgery with and without implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Despite higher complication rates, vaginal implants provide better long-term results overall than surgery without implants.

Feasibility and clinical implications of 3-day bladder diary derived classification of female storage lower urinary tract symptoms

Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a bladder diary (BD) classification as a surrogate for urodynamic studies in women with storage lower urinary tract symptoms. A total of 3823 women who underwent urodynamic studies were reviewed. Nearly the scores of Patient Perception of Bladder Condition, Indevus Urgency Severity Scale and Overactive Bladder Symptom Score decreased gradually from the overactive bladder (OAB) wet-BD, OAB dry-BD, hypersensitive bladder (HSB) -BD, nocturia-BD to normal-BD groups (all p < 0.001). In addition, there is a trend that the rates of bladder oversensitivity decreased gradually from the OAB wet-BD, OAB dry-BD, HSB-BD, nocturia-BD to normal-BD groups (chi-square test, p < 0.001). Moreover, almost the volumes of first desire to void, normal desire to void, strong desire to void, and urgency increased gradually from the OAB wet-BD, OAB dry-BD, HSB-BD, nocturia-BD to normal-BD groups (all p < 0.001). Thus, this BD classification is correlated significantly with symptom severity, the rate of bladder oversensitivity, and bladder capacity. Nonetheless, a combination of urodynamics, clinical history, and BD is still needed for a thorough diagnosis, but that BD provides an efficient diagnosis in a proportion of patients.

Ultralight type I transvaginal mesh: an alternative for recurrent severe posterior vaginal prolapse

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the medium-term outcomes of ultralight type I mesh for postmenopausal women with recurrent severe posterior vaginal prolapse (PVP).

METHODS

All participants underwent transvaginal ultralight type I mesh repair between April 2016 and April 2021 and were followed until May 2022. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) staging, mesh-related complications, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale and quality of life questionnaire responses were evaluated. The primary outcome was composite surgical success rate at the last follow-up, composite success being defined as no vaginal bulge symptoms, no POP-Q point at or beyond the hymen and no re-treatment for POP. Secondary outcomes included anatomic outcomes (POP-Q score), symptomatic relief and complications.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 37.3 months. At the last follow-up, the composite success rate was 75%, and POP-Q scores for the vault and posterior wall and quality of life questionnaire scores were significantly improved (p < 0.01). The subjective satisfaction (PGI-I ≤ 2) rate was 83.3%. There were no mesh-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultralight mesh can achieve good clinical outcomes and substantially improve the quality of life of patients with severe recurrent PVP in the medium term, and may thus be a viable alternative for treating this condition.

Efficacy and safety of anterior vaginal prolapse treatment using single incision repair system: Multicentric study

OBJECTIVE

Up to 80% of all POP surgical procedures are due to anterior vaginal wall prolapse. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transvaginal anterior mesh for POP surgical repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

153 consecutive patients with symptomatic or recurrent anterior vaginal prolapse undergoing surgical single-incision mesh (Calistar S) were prospectively enrolled in the study. Preoperative evaluation was performed collecting urogynecological history and performing a clinical exam, 3-day voiding diary and urodynamic testing. All incontinent patients completed the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Operative time, blood loss, perioperative and postoperative complications were prospectively recorded. Postoperative follow-up was scheduled at 1, 6, and 12 months with a urogynecological interview and examination. Success rate was assessed at 1, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 16.4 months. None of patients had intraoperative complications. Eight patients (5%) required surgical intervention for complications (5 patients (3%) for haematoma and 3 (2%) for vaginal erosion). At 12 months of follow up 130 out of 140 patients (93%) gained the subjective cure criterion, while 129 out of 140 patients (92%) obtained the objective cure criterion. Eleven (7.8%) patients experienced stage 2 or higher prolapse recurrence and three of them with a stage ≥3 underwent reintervention. No significant differences were recorded in primary outcome at 1, 6 or 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior compartment prolapse repair by Calistar S (single-incision vaginal mesh) is an effective and safe procedure without significant complications.

How common are complications following polypropylene mesh, biological xenograft and native tissue surgery for pelvic organ prolapse? A secondary analysis from the PROSPECT trial

Objective

To report complication rates following prolapse surgery using polypropylene mesh inlay, polypropylene mesh kit, biological collagen xenografts and native tissue repairs.

Design

Secondary analysis of the PROSPECT randomised controlled trial and cohort study.

Setting

Thirty‐five UK hospitals.

Population

A total of 2632 women undergoing anterior and/or posterior vaginal prolapse repair.

Methods

Event rates were calculated for all complications. Analysis was by treatment received.

Main outcome measures

IUGA/ICS classification of complications and validated patient reported outcome measures.

Results

At baseline, 8.4% of women had ‘generic’ pain/discomfort; at 2 years following surgery, there was an improvement in all four groups; however, 3.0% of women developed de novo extreme generic pain. At 24 months de novo vaginal tightness occurred in 1.6% of native tissue, 1.2% of biological xenograft, 0.3% of mesh inlay and 3.6% of mesh kit. Severe dyspareunia occurred in 4.8% of native tissue, 4.2% of biological xenograft, 3.4% of mesh inlay repairs and 13.0% of mesh kits. De novo severe dyspareunia occurred in 3.5% of native tissue, 3.5% of biological xenograft, 1.4% of mesh inlays and 4.8% of mesh kits. Complications requiring re‐admission to hospital, unrelated to mesh, affected 1 in 24 women; the most common reasons for re‐admission were vaginal adhesions, urinary retention, infection and constipation.

Conclusions

This is the first study to address the complications of vaginal mesh used for prolapse surgery alongside data from both native tissue and biological xenograft. It demonstrates the complexity of assessing pain and that all types of prolapse surgery have low surgical morbidity and a low rate of severe complications.

Tweetable abstract

A prospective study of 2362 women undergoing vaginal mesh, xenograft or native tissue repair found low surgical morbidity and low rates of severe complications.

A prospective study of 2362 women undergoing vaginal mesh, xenograft or native tissue repair found low surgical morbidity and low rates of severe complications.

Visualization of implanted mesh in the pelvic reconstructive surgery using an X-ray-detectable thread

PURPOSE

Visualization of the implanted mesh after a pelvic floor repair surgery is important for evaluating mesh-related complications. We made an X-ray-detectable mesh and studied the histocompatibility and toxicity of it.

METHODS

A thin barium sulfate thread was weaved on a traditional polypropylene mesh to make it X-ray detectable. The cytotoxicity of the mesh was tested by the MTT assay on L929 cell line. The histocompatibility and toxicity of mesh were evaluated in rabbits. Meshes were first implanted intraperitoneally. On postoperative day 7, bloods were tested to estimate the acute toxicity of meshes. After 6 months, rabbits were sacrificed and local inflammatory reaction and tissue regeneration at implantation sites were estimated by the HE stain and Masson stain. In addition, CT scans were performed after surgeries to display the location and shape of implanted meshes.

RESULTS

Compared to the polypropylene mesh group, no significant difference was observed in the X-ray-detectable mesh group on both in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo acute and chronic toxicity. The amounts of extra cellular matrix between two groups did not differ. Through CT scan and 3D remodeling, the barium sulfate thread clearly revealed the position and shape of the X-ray-detectable mesh, whereas the traditional mesh was invisible under CT scan.

CONCLUSION

Adding a thin barium sulfate thread on the polypropylene mesh does not change its histocompatibility or toxicity in rabbit model. The barium sulfate thread can effectively show the location and shape of implanted mesh under CT scan.