This article discusses mesh biology and known issues with mesh kits. The current mesh recommendations of national and international societies, as well as the impact of hysterectomy on mesh exposure during sacrocolpopexy are also discussed. (J GYNECOL SURG 39:30)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarberMD, BrubakerL, BurgioKL, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: The OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA, 2014; 311:1023.
2.
BarberMD, BradleyCS, WaltersMD, et al.Synthetic mesh and biologic grafts: Properties and biomechanics. In: BarberMD, BradleyCS, WaltersMD, et al., eds. Walters and Karram Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier/Saunders, 2022:93.
CundiffGW, VarnerE, ViscoAG, et al.Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2008; 199:688.e1.
5.
KlingeU, KlosterhalfenB. Modified classification of surgical meshes for hernia repair based on the analyses of 1,000 explanted meshes. Hernia, 2012; 16:251.
6.
GutmanRE, NostiPA, SokolAI, et al.Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol, 2013; 122:770.
7.
NagerCW, ViscoAG, RichterHE, et al.Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2021; 225:153.e1.
8.
American Urogynecologic Society. American Urogynecologic Society. Position Statement: Mesh Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence. 2021. Online document at: www.augs.org/assets/1/6/AUGS-SUFU_MUS_Position_Statement.pdf Accessed March24, 2022.
RobinsonD, AraklitisG. Vaginal mesh: What lessons have we learnt?. Case Rep Womens Health, 2020; 28:e00258.
11.
WoodburnKL, El HarakiAS, SokolAI, et al.Mesh exposure following vaginal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy at the time of sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J, 2022; February 14:e-pub ahead of print.
12.
DavidsonERW, ThomasTN, LampertEJ, et al.Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes. Int Urogynecol J, 2019; 30:649.
13.
CraneAK, GellerEJ, SullivanS, et al.Short-term mesh exposure after robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. South Med J, 2014; 107:603.
14.
OsmundsenBC, ClarkA, GoldsmithC, et al.Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18:86;erratum: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg, 2012; 18:255.
15.
DallasK, TaichL, KuhlmannP, et al.Supracervical hysterectomy is protective against mesh complications after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A population-based cohort study of 12,189 patients. J Urol, 2022; 207:669.
16.
Tan-KimJ, MenefeeSA, LuberKM, et al.Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J, 2011; 22:205.
17.
DeblaereS, HauspyJ, HansenK. Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: A narrative review. Int Urogynecol J, 2022; February 28:e-pub ahead of print.
18.
LinderAA, GauthierI, RamirezFD, et al.Predictors of sling revision after mid-urethral sling procedures: A case-control study. BJOG, 2019; 126:419.
19.
GoldKP, WardRM, ZimmermanCW, et al.Factors associated with exposure of transvaginally placed polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J, 2012; 23:1461.
20.
ClancyAA, GauthierI, RamirezFD, et al.Predictors of sling revision after mid-urethral sling procedures: A case-control study. BJOG, 2019; 126:419.
