The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published asecond warning to medical practitioners and patients on“Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement ofSurgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse” in July 2011.Following this, on the advice of legal advisors the researchand ethics committee of one of our hospitals (P.L.D)recommended that no further synthetic mesh be used forany incontinence or prolapse surgery. This recommendationwas a case of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”and was not ratified following further discussion. However,it is an indication of the perfect storm referred to byBrubaker and Shull in this issue of the InternationalUrogynecology Journal [1]. In order to give a range ofopinions we are also publishing in this issue the views ofother well-known gynaecologists on the usage of syntheticgrafts [2, 3].So how did we get to this? Polypropylene syntheticmesh has been used in urogynaecology since the 1960s totreat stress incontinence [4]. However, it was not untilUlmsten and Petros developed the TVT sling with itsadvantages of same-day surgery and less postoperative painand morbidity that the mid-urethral sling became thecommonest stress incontinence operation performed world-wide. This success led to the development of a number ofsimilar slings by many commercial companies. Complica-tions did occur, frequently related to inexperienced trocarpositioning and incorrect placement of tape in the bladder,small bowel or blood vessels. The incidence of polypro-pylene mesh-related complication was low, with a less than1% rate of infection or mesh exposure, although this wasnot the case when non-polypropylene tapes were used,when infection and rejection rates were high. These werethen discontinued, but not until considerable damage hadbeen done.The problem with transvaginal polypropylene mesh wasevident from the beginning. In a prospective randomisedstudy by Julian in 1996 of 24 patients with mesh versusnon-mesh for surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele [5],there was a better anatomical result with no recurrence inthe mesh group but 3 of the 12 patients had mesh exposure.When we reported our 2-year results in 2004, our meshexposure rate was 9% [6]. It was interesting that the resultsof a meta-analysis of recent studies published this year byAbed et al. [7] showed an incidence of 10.3%. Therefore,little progress has been made in this critical area despite theuse of softer, lighter polypropylene meshes.These exposures are often asymptomatic, but maycause symptoms of discharge, bleeding and pain, espe-cially during intercourse, both to the patient and herpartner. Bowel and bladder perforation are rare but occurespecially if these organs have been injured. These meshexposures in most cases require excision of the exposedmesh and vaginal closure, usually under general anaes-thesia as day surgery. In some cases multiple attempts atrepair are required for recurring mesh exposures. Asmesh exposures can occur late, long-term studies(10yearsormore)maybeneededtoknowthetruemesh exposure complication rate. Vaginal exposure of
Read full abstract