Mesh For Prolapse Research Articles

Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy with SERATEX® SlimSling® Mesh: A Retrospective Case Series.

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery has evolved toward minimally invasive techniques. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSHP) is associated with reduced morbidity and lower mesh exposure risks. This study evaluates the long-term outcomes of LSHP using the SERATEX® SlimSling® mesh for isolated uterine prolapse. A retrospective case series was conducted on patients who underwent LSHP with SERATEX® SlimSling® mesh for apical prolapse with uterine preservation between 2014 and 2020. Data were extracted from medical records, including demographics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes. Modified POP-Q measurements (Ba, Bp, C, D) were recorded. Patients were assessed perioperatively and at multiple postoperative intervals, with follow-up via telephone interviews by a urogynecologist. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and univariate analysis, with a p value of less than 0.05 considered significant. Twenty-five women underwent LSHP with a mean age of 46years. Most patients had isolated apical prolapse without other symptoms. Intraoperatively, 75% had concomitant cervical shortening, 10% had anterior colporrhaphy, and 30% had mid urethral sling, with a mean surgery duration of 112min and no postoperative complications. Median follow-up was 66months. Three patients (12%) experienced prolapse recurrence, mainly cystocele with two requiring reoperations. Four patients conceived and delivered post-procedure, all via cesarean section. At the long-term telephone interview, 76.2% were very happy with the surgery, 14.3% happy, and 9.5% unhappy. LSHP with the SERATEX® SlimSling® mesh for isolated uterine prolapse demonstrates a fair safety profile, durable outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and favorable pregnancy outcomes. This procedure offers a viable, minimally invasive option for uterine preservation.

Modified surelift anterior-apical transvaginal mesh for advanced urogenital prolapse: Retrospective surgical, functional and sonographic outcomes at 3 years

ObjectiveThis study evaluates the outcomes of modified transvaginal mesh (TVM) Surelift in managing advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) over a 3-year follow-up period, focusing on surgical success, functional improvement, and sonographic findings. MethodsA retrospective review was conducted on 99 women who underwent Surelift System surgery for advanced POP Stage III and IV between July 2018 to January 2020. Objective evaluation included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), multichannel urodynamic (UDS), and introital 2D ultrasonographic measurement. Subjective evaluation uses validated questionnaires of Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7(IIQ-7), Urogenital Distress Inventory-6(UDI-6), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory 6(POPDI-6), Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory-8(CRADI-8) and Pelvic organ prolapse/ Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Outcomes were examined at 3 months, yearly and at 3 years postoperative. Secondary outcome included de novo or persistent urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) and surgical complications. ResultsEighty-five women were included in the final analysis. At 3 years postoperative, the objective cure rate was 94.1 % and subjective cure rate of 91.8 %. Ultrasonography revealed initial mesh elongation and thickening at first year, resolving by the third year, while the distance between the bladder neck and mesh remained stable. Significant improvement in POP-Q components (Aa,Ba,C,Ap,Bp and TVL of p < 0.001), UDS (p < 0.001) and all validated Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaires (p < 0.001) were seen. De Novo USI and persistent USI occurred in 31.5 %. Complications included vaginal mesh exposure requiring excision in 4.7 % of patients, and one intraoperative bladder injury corrected promptly. ConclusionThe Surelift System TVM demonstrates safety and efficacy in treating advanced anterior-apical POP, achieving high cure rates, secured mesh placement, and minimal complications at 3 years post-operative.

Perioperative Opioid Use in Urogynecologic Mesh Removal.

Forty percent of patients with urogynecologic mesh pain complications are taking narcotics. We aimed to compare comorbidities and pain scores between patients with and without narcotic use and assess postoperative narcotic use rates. This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing urogynecologic mesh removal. Patients with mesh removal for pain within 7 years were included due to data availability. Narcotic prescriptions were verified using the Pennsylvania Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. Pain scores were assessed at baseline and 6-24 months postoperatively. Of 139 patients, 30 (21.6%) filled narcotic prescriptions within 3 months preceding surgery. These patients were younger and more likely to have a chronic pain condition. Narcotic use did not differ by sling versus prolapse mesh, or presence of exposure. Patients taking preoperative narcotics had a 27-point higher median baseline visual analog scale pelvic pain score (P = 0.01). Patients with pain comorbidities had 6 times odds of using preoperative narcotics. Younger patients had less improvement in pelvic pain after removal. Only 8 (27%) of those taking narcotics discontinued use postoperatively with no significant predictors of prolonged (≥3 months) use. Eighty-seven percent of patients with prolonged postoperative use had a prior pain diagnosis, commonly joint and back pain. In patients with mesh-related pain, those with chronic pain conditions had much higher odds of taking preoperative narcotics, and in most, mesh removal did not eliminate narcotic use. Counseling is warranted in patients with chronic pain conditions that pain and narcotic use are likely to persist after removal.

Design and development of vaginal wall mimicking poly(ϵ-caprolactone) based nanofibrous prosthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of biocompatibility and antibacterial ability.

Mechanical non-conformance of conventionally used transvaginal non-degradable meshes has led to complications such as organ perforation, dyspareunia caused by mesh stiffness and stress shielding. In this study, we have solved the dire need to mimic the mechanical properties of the vaginal wall by designing and developing a soft and elastic mesh made of polycaprolactone (PCL), citric acid modified polyethylene glycol (PEGC) and zinc oxide (ZnO) prepared through electrospinning and testedin vitroandin vivo. The mesh containing 90:10:0.1 of PCL, PEGC and ZnO (PEGC-15 0.1ZnO mesh) conforms to the mechanical properties of the vaginal wall of the pelvic floor, has a burst strength of ∼35 N even after gamma-sterilization and 28 d of degradation inin vitro.In vitrostudies using adipose-derived stem cells revealed that the PCL-PEGC-15 0.1ZnO meshes were biocompatible and supported higher collagen production than commercial mesh.An in vitrobacterial adhesion study showed a 2-log reduction compared to commercially available mesh for prolapse treatment. Initial biocompatibility assessment in a rabbit model also showed that the PCL-PEGC-15 0.1ZnO mesh is biocompatible and supports fibrosis throughout the mesh. The softness and flexibility of the PCL-PEGC-15 0.1ZnO mesh based onin vitrotrials and initialin vivotrials show that the mesh has a potential clinical impact for pelvic floor repair treatment.

Risk of Recurrent Prolapse by Extent of Mesh Excision Procedures: A Multicenter Study.

There is limited evidence guiding surgeons in how much mesh to resect when treating mesh complications. The aim of the study was to compare rates of recurrent prolapse after mesh excisional surgical procedures for prolapse mesh complications. This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients, identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes, who were treated surgically for prolapse mesh complications at 8 institutions between 2010 and 2019. Excisional surgical procedures were categorized as major (total vaginal, extravaginal, and total mesh excisions) or minor (partial vaginal excisions and mesh revisions). The primary outcome was prolapse recurrence 1 year after mesh excision surgery. Secondary outcomes included long-term prolapse recurrence. Prolapse recurrence was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression. Two hundred sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria with 188 (72%) undergoing minor and 73 (28%) major excisions, with a median follow-up time of 1.0 years. Groups differed in parity, location of implant surgery, and number of vaginal compartments involved in excision. Within the first year, major excisions had a higher prolapse recurrence rate (8.7%) than minor excisions (2.9%), P < 0.05. Adjusting for mesh implant type, the hazard ratio for pelvic organ prolapse was 6.1 in the major compared to minor excision. In the entire study period, prolapse recurrence was 33.8% and did not differ between groups. Patients undergoing major excision surgical procedures may have higher rates of prolapse at 1 year compared to those undergoing minor excisions. However, in long-term follow-up, recurrence rates were not different. Our findings may aid surgeons in expectation setting prior to excisional procedures.

The Impact of Smoking on Sacrocolpopexy Perioperative Outcomes: An Observational Study.

Tobacco smoke is a modifiable risk factor that surgeons discuss with patients prior to undergoing sacrocolpopexy or mesh revision surgery. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of smoking on perioperative outcomes after sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse and mesh revision repair. This was a retrospective cohort study of data obtained from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project's database. Women who underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse via abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP) or minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) or prolapse mesh revision surgery from 2011 to 2021 were identified and compared based on current tobacco use. Demographic, medical, and surgical history, as well as intraoperative and 30-day perioperative outcomes, were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed. Overall, 21,980 women underwent MISCP (8.60% smokers) and 3,775 underwent ASCP (8.74% smokers). Postoperative wound infections were more common after sacrocolpopexy in patients who smoked. Readmission after MISCP was more common in smokers. The composite perioperative morbidity score was different between smokers and nonsmokers for MISCP (P = 0.001) and ASCP (P = 0.002). Multivariate analyses of MISCP outcomes found an association between smoking and wound infection, readmission, and composite score. Multivariate analyses of ASCP outcomes found an association between smoking and wound infection. Overall 2,160 patients underwent mesh removal by any modality (16.57% smokers), and no difference in perioperative outcomes between smokers and nonsmokers for mesh removal was found. An association was found between tobacco smoking and wound infection as well as other postoperative complications. Tobacco use prior to a mesh excision procedure does not appear to increase perioperative outcomes.

Mesh-associated pain syndrome: predictors for continence and prolapse mesh removal surgery in a single centre

ObjectiveOver the last two decades one of the main surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery was the insertion of non-absorbable mesh to restore continence and prolapse respectively. Over time complications arose including mesh-associated pain syndrome (MAPS), mesh exposure, mesh, erosion, chronic bladder/vaginal infections, and dyspareunia. Consequently, women chose surgical mesh removal to counter these problems. However, little is known about the demographics, medical co-morbidities, mesh types involved and the timing from mesh insertion to mesh removal. This retrospective study will look at which of these factors may be closely associated with mesh removal surgery.DesignRetrospective evaluation.SettingFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) Clinic at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.PopulationAll patients presenting to the FPMRS Clinic between June 2011 to December 2019, requesting mesh removal surgery with a history of MAPS and other mesh complications were included in this study.MethodsPatient demographics including age, ethnicity, obstetric history, and medical co-morbidities; type of mesh/anatomical route used; onset of symptoms; and time from insertion to removal were recorded.Main Outcome MeasuresDetermination of correlation coefficients between patient demographics, patient reported symptoms and mesh removal surgery.ResultsThree hundred and forty-five women with a history of MAPS were included in the study. Women in the 40–60 year old cohort accounted for 54.4% of mesh removal surgery; 54.8% had a BMI under 30 and almost 90% were Caucasian. 96.5% had had children, with over 77% having had a vaginal delivery. 91.9% of patients reported other health conditions including 18.8% with a concomitant history of mental health problems and 15.4% with a history of heart disease. Over 80% of women undergoing mesh removal surgery had a continence mesh (49% retropubic and 32% obturator continence mesh) removed, whereas 20% had an abdominal prolapse and/or vaginal prolapse mesh removed. The average time from mesh insertion to mesh removal was seven years, with the prevalence of mesh removal surgery averaging 85% (range 50–100%) depending on the comorbidity determined.ConclusionsAll women presented to the clinic with a history of MAPS and other comorbidities which may have influenced their decision to pursue mesh removal surgery. There were no specific predictors, other than chronic pain associated with mesh, determining which women underwent surgery, though those with continence mesh were more likely to do so.

Laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for severe anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse: an observational cohort study for safety and efficacy at 2-year follow-up.

This study aimed to investigate the clinical safety and efficacy of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) with mesh in the treatment of severe anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) Chinese women with a 2-year follow-up. We conducted an observational cohort study. Sixty patients who presented apical (uterovaginal or vault) and anterior prolapse at stage 3 or higher were enrolled. The LLS surgical procedure was performed in accordance with Dubuisson standard operation. The objective and subjective cures as well as the surgery-related complications were evaluated. The POP-related questionnaires were used to evaluate the quality of life before operation and at 24months after operation follow-up. Objective cure rates at 2years of follow-up were 88.3% for the anterior compartment, 100% for the apical compartment and 93.3% for the posterior compartment. The subjective cure rate reached to 93.3%. There were statistically significant lower scores of thepelvic floor impact questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7) and the pelvic floor distress inventory-short form-20 (PFDI-20)for all women after surgery and they exhibited similar scores of the pelvic organ prolapsed-urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12) (P = 0.317). And no significant difference was demonstrated in international consultation on the incontinent questionnaire short form (ICI-Q-SF) (P = 0.551). No major complications associated with LLS were observed in our study. We consider that LLS with mesh operation is safe, feasible and effective to correct severe apical and anterior POP after 2-year follow-up.

Diagnosis and treatment of abdominally inserted (sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy) mesh complications for vault/uterine prolapse

Background:Sacrohysteropexy and sacrocolpopexy are established treatments of uterine or vaginal vault prolapse respectively and involve insertion of mesh abdominally, often using permanent sutures and fixation devices. Complications following these procedures may be serious, and there is lack of evidence about long-term functional outcomes in terms of pain, dyspareunia and development of lower urinary tract and bowel symptoms. Objective:A non-systematic review of the available literature was performed and recommendations on assessment and management were developed by expert consensus. Conclusion:The current evidence is limited in quantity and quality, and recommendations on assessment management of mesh-related complications were made by experts in the field. Assessment and treatment of complications following abdominally placed mesh for pelvic organ prolapse will often require a multidisciplinary approach. Assessment may require EUA, and/or cystourethroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and laparoscopy. MRI is the most useful imaging modality. Surgery to remove mesh carries a risk of urinary tract and bowel injury, as well as development of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. A joint decision between the surgeon and the patient should be made before embarking on a partial removal of mesh; removal of all the mesh may be a better option albeit with higher risk of surgical complications. Complete removal of mesh and tacks or sutures from the sacral attachment may not be possible and is associated with risk of major haemorrhage.

Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders

(Abstracted from Urogynecology 2024;30:467–475 In 2013, the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) Board of Directors distributed a “Position Statement on Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders” in response to limitations instituted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the use of transvaginal mesh (TVM) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) due to concerns about safety and effectiveness. This article is an update to that statement informed by additional clinical data, decisions from the FDA, and relevant guidelines regarding surgical mesh.

Diagnosis and treatment of vaginally inserted pelvic organ prolapse mesh complications

Diagnosis and treatment of vaginally inserted pelvic organ prolapse mesh complications

Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders.

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.

Cosmetic and functional impact of fascia lata harvest for use in surgery for stress urinary incontinence.

There has been increased interest in using autologous tissues since the Food and Drug Administration banned transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse in 2019. Our study aims to assess patients' perspective of functional and cosmetic impact on the fascia lata harvest site in patients undergoing fascia lata harvest for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This is a prospective survey study of a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent a fascia lata pubovaginal sling between 2017 and 2022. Participants completed a survey regarding the functional and cosmetic outcomes of the harvest site. Seventy-two patients met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine patients completed the survey for a completion rate of 40.3%. For functional symptoms, 24.1% (7/29) of patients reported leg discomfort, 10.3% (3/29) reported leg weakness, 10.3% (3/29) reported a bulge, 17.2% (5/29) reported scar pain, 14.8% (4/27) reported scar numbness, and 17.2% (5/29) reported paresthesia at the scar. For cosmetic outcomes, 72.4% (21/29) reported an excellent or good scar appearance. On the PGI-I, 75.9% (22/29) reported their condition as very much better (48.3%, 14/29) or much better (27.6%, 8/29). The majority of patients reported being satisfied with the functional and cosmetic outcomes of their harvest site as well as satisfied with the improvement in their SUI. Less than 25% of patients report harvest site symptoms, including leg weakness, scar bulging, scar pain, scar numbness, or paresthesia in the scar. This is important in the context of appropriate preoperative discussion and counseling regarding fascia lata harvest.

Transvaginal mesh for incontinence and prolapse: Where are we now and how did we get here?

Transvaginal mesh for incontinence and prolapse: Where are we now and how did we get here?

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study.

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates. The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants. There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC. Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Outcomes of Lightweight Mesh Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

Objective: The research objective is to present and evaluate 3 years of experience in sacrospinal fixation using polypropylene mesh in the surgical treatment of genital prolapse in women. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated perioperative and mid-term outcomes in 68 women who underwent transvaginal sacroscopic cervicocolpopexy with lightweight polypropylene mesh for stage II-IV prolapse with apical involvement. Anatomical outcomes, complications, and symptoms were assessed using POP-Q staging and validated questionnaires preoperatively and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Results: No intraoperative complications were observed. In the long-term postoperative period, the following were observed: vaginal wall erosion in transvaginal Mesh-systems placement along the postoperative suture line at 2.9 % (2/68), and chronic pelvic pain at 2.9 % (2/68). The percentage of anatomical success in restoring the position of the apical vaginal segment was 98.5 % (67/68) 12 months after surgery and remained unchanged after 36 months of follow-up.

SP10.1 Post operative complications and functional outcome after ventral mesh and suture rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single centre observational study

Abstract Aims Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is a technique gaining more recognition for the management of pelvic floor disorders, such as external rectal prolapse (ERP), high grade internal rectal prolapse (IRP) and rectocele. The aim of this study was to evaluate post op complications (early, late and mesh) and functional outcomes after a standardized LVMR. Methods All patients who underwent Rectopexy from February 2008 to April 2021 were included into the study. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Surgical complications, mesh complications (mesh detachment, erosion and infection) and functional results in terms of faecal incontinence, recurrence and ODS were analysed. Results 95 patients (88 – LVMR; 7 - suture Rectopexy) who underwent Rectopexy were included in the study with a mean age of 68 and female predominance of 90 patients. 30 patients had external rectal prolapse (ERP), 45 patients had internal rectal prolapse (IRP) or intussusception, 20 patients had both ERP and IRP (Table 3). 53 patients had preoperative MRI scan and 15 patients had preoperative proctogram. (Table 4). 92 patients did not have any early complications. 13 patients had late postoperative complications including recurrent prolapse, stoma formation, suture migration and incisional hernia. Mesh complications were seen in 2 patients with mesh erosion and mesh detachment, both of whom had non-absorbable stitches used. There were no post op deaths documented. During the follow up period, 12 patient developed symptoms of ODS. Conclusion LVMR is a safe and effective treatment for rectal prolapse. Careful patient selection, appropriate preoperative workup, and meticulous surgical technique undoubtedly transforms postoperative outcomes.

Google searches for stress urinary incontinence treatment options: a worldwide trend analysis in the synthetic mesh controversy era.

To analyze trends in worldwide public interest in the treatment options for stress urinary incontinence around the latest FDA 2019 ban on vaginal mesh for prolapse. We used the web-based tool Google Trends to analyse online searches related to the following terms: 'pelvic floor muscle exercises', 'continence pessary', 'pubovaginal slings', 'Burch colposuspension', 'midurethral slings', 'injectable bulking agents'. Data were expressed as relative search volume on a scale of 0-100. Comparisons of annual relative search volume and average annual percentage change, were analyzed to assess loss or gain of interest. Finally, we assessed the impact of the last FDA alert. The mean annual relative search volume for midurethral slings was 20% in 2006 and significantly decreased until 8% in 2022 (p < 0.01). A regular decrease interest was recorded for autologous surgeries but a regain of interest for pubovaginal slings was registered since 2020 (+ 2.8%; p < 0.01). Conversely, a steep interest was noted for injectable bulking agents (average annual percentage change: + 4.4%; p < 0.01) and conservative therapies (p < 0.01). When trends were compared before and after the FDA 2019 alert, a lower research volume was found for midurethral slings, while a higher research volume was observed all others treatments (all p < 0.05). The online public researches about midurethral slings have considerably decreased following warnings on the use of transvaginal mesh. There seems to be a growing interest in conservative measures, bulking agents, and recently pubovaginal slings.

Measurement of extraction forces of non-absorbable suture and different anchoring systems used for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using soft-embalmed cadavers: A feasibility study

ObjectiveSuccess of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh procedures also depends on reliable anchoring systems (AS). Our primary aim was to assess the use of soft-embalmed cadavers in testing of different AS and our secondary aim was to compare extraction forces (EF) of different AS and non-absorbable suture (NAS). Study designIRB approval was obtained. NAS (Ti-cron®) and different AS were attached to force-measuring instrument (Dynamometer SS25LA) and anchored to anterior longitudinal (ALL) and pectineal ligament (PL) (Protack®, Uplift®, NAS), and sacrospinous ligament (SSL) (Surelift®, Elevate PC®, NAS) of Thiel soft-embalmed cadavers. EF were measured 2–4 times in each cadaver. Data were compared using non-parametric tests. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. ResultsThree female cadavers (age 59, 77 and 87) were used. NAS EF were significantly higher than AS EF for ALL and SSL, but not PL. Thiel soft-embalmed cadavers proved to be useful in testing of different AS. ConclusionsUse of soft-embalmed cadavers in testing of different AS is feasible. According to our results, the NAS provides most reliable intra-corporeal fixation. However, significant inter- and intra-subject variability indicates that results may also be dependent on the tissue properties and anchoring procedure. Further testing using soft-embalmed cadavers could help optimise mesh procedures and establish a threshold EF necessary for reliable fixation.

Aversion to Mesh Use in Pelvic Floor Surgery in a Latina Population at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

Limited studies have examined patient aversion to mesh use in pelvic surgery, especially in Latinas. This study aimed to assess aversion to pelvic surgery with mesh for urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in a sample of Latinas on the U.S.-Mexico border. This was a cross-sectional study of self-identified Latinas with symptoms of pelvic floor disorders, recruited at their initial consultation visit at a single, academic urogynecology clinic. Participants completed a validated survey to assess perceptions of mesh use in pelvic surgery. Participants also completed questionnaires assessing the presence and severity of pelvic floor symptoms and level of acculturation. The primary outcome was aversion to mesh surgery, as indicated by a response of "yes" or "maybe" to the question "Based on what you already know, would you avoid surgery using mesh?" Descriptive analysis, univariate relative risk, and linear regression analysis were completed to identify characteristics associated with mesh avoidance. Significance was assessed and considered at P values <0.05. Ninety-six women were included. Only 6.3% had prior pelvic floor surgery using mesh. Sixty-six percent indicated that they would be likely to avoid pelvic surgery that uses mesh. Only 9.4% indicated that they obtained information regarding mesh directly from medical professionals. Levels of concern regarding the use of mesh varied widely (29.2% not worried, 19.1% somewhat worried, 16.9% very worried). Higher percentages of "more acculturated" participants indicated a desire to avoid mesh surgery (58.7% vs 27.3%, P < 0.05). In this Latina population, a majority of patients indicated an aversion to using mesh in pelvic surgery. Few patients obtained information regarding mesh directly from medical professionals, relying instead on nonmedical sources.