Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery: the evidence for the repairs

Abstract

What is known on the subject? and What does the study add? Substantial experience of the outcomes has been gathered regarding the acute and sub-acute experience with various types of corrective procedures for POP. These include long-term POP correction as well as more recent recognition of improvement in functional disorders associated with POP such as UI, colorectal dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction. Long-term follow-up is available for some of the older types of interventions and current multicentre trials are being accrued with longer term follow-up for new interventions including mesh-type repairs. The study adds a condensed and summarized version of the current literature regarding the various interventions for POP and also provides an overview of the current controversies and areas where knowledge is incomplete and in need of further elaboration for definitive answers regarding optimization of surgical care for POP. Our aim is to summarise the available data on the transvaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, with a focus on the outcomes and complications of commercial POP-repair kits. As the stability and durability of autologous tissues may be questionable, nonabsorbable, synthetic materials are an attractive alternative for providing additional support during POP surgery. These materials are not novel, and most have been used for many years in surgical applications, e.g. hernia repairs. While theoretically appealing, the implantation of synthetic mesh in the pelvis may be associated with inherent adverse consequences, such as erosion, extrusion, and infection. Additionally, the routine use of these materials may carry potential long-term complications, such as dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and vaginal distortion. The success and failure of mesh-augmented POP repair is related not only to the synthetic material itself, but also to patient- and surgeon-related factors. Recent warnings by the USA Food and Drug Administration and other groups regarding adverse events further complicate the decision to use synthetic mesh.