Predictors of Outcome after Transvaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Ifeanyi Anusionwu, Stacy Loeb, Stephen Juraschek, Lynda Mettee, Edward James Wright

Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/oju.2012.24043                

Abstract

Introduction: We aim to report outcomes and predictors of outcome of transvaginal mesh (TVM) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We also report frequency, severity, risk factors, and management of mesh-related complications after TVM. Materials and methods: We performed retrospective chart review of TVM performed from 2005 to 2010. There were 67 patients followed for a mean duration of eighteen months. Complications were reported using the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association classification system for prosthesis/graft complication. Results: Success rate was 88% (97% for anterior repair, 100% for posterior repair and 71% for combined repair) and complications occurred in 13 patients (19%), including vaginal hematoma, pelvic pain, urinary retention, dyspareunia and vaginal mesh exposure (in 9 patients). On multivariable logistic regression, recurrence was significantly higher with combined repair (P = 0.021), overall complication was significantly associated with younger age (P = 0.019), and mesh exposure was significantly associated with age and combined repair. All mesh-related complications were vaginal exposures occurring at median of 6 months postoperatively. Two patients were managed conservatively with vaginal estrogen cream, while seven patients elected surgical excision of exposed mesh with primary re-approximation of the vaginal epithelium. There were no excision-related complications, and in no case was the defect large enough to require closure with graft or secondary material. Conclusion: Combined anterior and posterior repair using TVM is associated with failure, younger age is associated with higher rate of complication, and combined repair and younger age are associated with mesh-related complication specifically.

Keywords

Prolapse; Mesh; Vagina; Outcome; Complication

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	A. L. Olsen, V. J. Smith, J. O. Bergstrom, J. C. Colling and A. L. Clark, “Epidemiology of Surgically Managed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 89, No. 4, 1997, pp. 501-506. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
[2]	A. M. Weber, M. D. Walters, M. R. Piedmonte and L. A. Ballard, “Anterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Trial of Three Surgical Techniques,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 185, No. 6, 2001, pp. 1299-1304. doi:10.1067/mob.[phone]
[3]	T. V. Sanses, A. Shahryarinejad, S. Molden, et al., “Anatomic Outcomes of Vaginal Mesh Procedure (Prolift) Compared with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network Study,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 201, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1-8.
[4]	“FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” 2011. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm
[5]	D. Altman, T. Vayrynen, M. E. Engh, S. Axelsen and C. Falconer, “Short-Term Outcome after Transvaginal Mesh Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” International Urogynecol Journal of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2008, pp. 787-793. doi:10.1007/s00192-007-0526-2
[6]	R. Nair, A. Nnochiri, C. Barnick and C. Roberts, “Transvaginal Mesh (ProliftTM) Repair: 2-Year Anatomic Outcomes,” European Journal of Obstetrics, and Gynecology Reproductive Biology, Vol. 158, No. 2, 2011, pp. 358-360.
[7]	R. C. Bump, A. Mattiasson, K. Bo, et al., “The Standardization of Terminology of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction,” American Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology, Vol. 175, No. 1, 1996, pp. 10-17. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
[8]	B. T. Haylen, R. M. Freeman, S. E. Swift, et al., International Urogynecological Association, International Continence Society and Joint IUGA/ICS Working Group on Complications Terminology, “An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Terminology and Classification of the Complications Related Directly to the Insertion of Prostheses (Meshes, Implants, Tapes) and Grafts in Female Pelvic Floor Surgery,” Neurourology Urodynamics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2011, pp. 2
[9]	“Prolift website,” 2012. http://www.ethicon360.com/sites/default/files/products/PRO-294-11_PROLIFT_IFU.pdf
[10]	D. Altman, T. Vayrynen, M. E. Engh, S. Axelsen and C. Falconer, “Anterior Colporrhaphy Versus Transvaginal Mesh for Pelvic-Organ Prolapse,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 364, No. 19, 2011, pp. 1826-1836.
[11]	L. O. Gagnon and L. M. Tu, “Mid-Term Results of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using a Transvaginal Mesh: The Experience in Sherbooke, Quebec,” Canadian Urological Association Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2010, pp. 188-191.
[12]	Committee on Gynecologic Practice, “Committee Opinion No. 513: Vaginal Placement of Synthetic Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse,” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Vol. 118, No. 6, 2011.
[13]	C. Birch, “The Use of Prosthetics in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery,” Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2005, pp. 979-991. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.08.013
[14]	T. M. Julian, “The Efficacy of Marlex Mesh in the Repair of Severe, Recurrent Vaginal Prolapse of the Anterior Midvaginal Wall,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 175, No. 6, 1996, pp. 1472-1475. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70092-3
[15]	H. M. van Raalte, V. R. Lucente, S. M. Molden, R. Haff and M. Murphy, “One-Year Anatomic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes after the Prolift Procedure for Treatment of Posthysterectomy Prolapse,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol. 199, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1-6.
[16]	M. Carey, P. Higgs, J. Goh, et al., “Vaginal Repair with Mesh Versus Colporrhaphy for Prolapse: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Vol. 116, No. 10, 2009, pp. 1380-1386. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02254.x
[17]	S. Y. Khong and A. Lam, “Use of Surgisis Mesh in the Management of Polypropylene Mesh Erosion into the Vagina,” International Urogynecological Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2011, pp. 41-46.
[18]	Y. Kaufman, S. S. Singh, H. Alturki and A. Lam, “Age and Sexual Activity Are Risk Factors for Mesh Exposure Following Transvaginal Mesh Repair,” International Urogynecol Journal of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2011, pp. 307-313.