Introduction: Our aim was to assess the efficacy and complications of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) correction with transvaginal mesh (TVM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively assessed patients who had undergone a repair of an apical (primary or recurrent) or recurrent POP using TVM in our department since 2007. Meshes used were Prolift®, Elevate®, and Surelift®. Satisfaction with surgery was assessed on a 0–10 scale. Results: A total of 83 patients were included (33 Prolift®, 36 Elevate®, 14 Surelift®), with a mean age of 67.8 ± 9.7 years. Eighteen (21.6%) patients underwent a recurrent POP correction. Follow-up was 49 ± 34 months. Twelve (14.4%) symptomatic recurrences were identified, 3 of which required further surgery. Satisfaction was 8.7. Four (4.8%) vaginal exposures were detected, 2 of which required partial mesh removal. Three (3.6%) cases of dyspareunia and 1 (1.2%) case of mild pelvic pain were reported, which did not require further treatment. Conclusion: The use of TVM for apical or recurrent POP repair is effective and is associated with a high satisfaction rate while complications are infrequent.

Keywords:
Pelvic organ prolapse, Pelvic floor dysfunction female, Complication, Prolapse recurrence, Mesh exposure
1.
Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, Milani AL, Arlandis S, Artibani W, et al: Consensus statement of the European urology association and the European urogynaecological association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 424–431.
2.
Brincat C, Brubaker L: Mesh, graft, or standard repair for prolapse surgery? Lancet 2017 28; 389334–336.
3.
Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Shveiky D, Bercik R, et al: One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 86.e1–e9.
4.
Barski D, Otto T, Gerullis H: Systematic review and classification of complications after anterior, posterior, apical, and total vaginal mesh implantation for prolapse repair. Surg Technol Int 24: 217–224.
5.
Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse issued July, 2011. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf (accessed December 14, 2017).
6.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al: The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 2002; 21: 167–178.
7.
Baden WF, Walker TA: Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1972; 15: 1048–1054.
8.
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al: An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010; 29: 4–20.
9.
Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B: Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (prolift technique) – a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2007; 18: 743–752.
10.
Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Miklos JR: Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J 2012; 23: 85–91.
11.
Baya G: Anterior, Apical and Posterior Compartment Repair with Mesh: Minimally Invasive Sacrospinous Fixation System. [Abstract] International Continence Society, 2013, p 310.
12.
Amid PK: Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia 1995; 1: 15.
13.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–213.
14.
Chassagne S, Bernier PA, Haab F, Roehrborn CG, Reisch JS, Zimmern PE: Proposed cutoff values to define bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urology 1998; 51: 408–411.
15.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J: Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 10:CD012376.
16.
Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al: Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet 2017; 389: 381–392.
17.
Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, Svabik K, Mlcoch M, Kolarik D, Mala I, Krofta L, Halaska MJ, et al: A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 301.e1–e7.
18.
Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Peterson JL, Wang H, et al: Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 770–777.
19.
Dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad JM, de Jármy-Di Bella ZI, Nastri F, Kawabata MG, da Silva Carramão S, Rodrigues CA, et al: Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J 2015; 26: 335–342.
20.
Milani AL, Vollebregt A, Roovers JP, Withagen M: The use of mesh in vaginal prolapse. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2013; 157:A6324.
21.
Costantini E, Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Del Zingaro M, Vianello A, Porena M: Managing mesh erosion after abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair: ten years’ experience in a single center. Urol Int 2011; 86: 419–423.
22.
SCENIHR: Final Opinion on the Safety of Surgical Meshes Used in Urogynecological Surgery; 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_049.pdf.
23.
Campbell J, Pedroletti C, Ekhed L, Nüssler E, Strandell A: Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study. Int Urogynecol J 2018; 29: 821–829.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.