Advertisement

Long-term Outcomes and Complications of Trans-vaginal Mesh Removal: A 14-year Experience

      Abstract

      Objective

      To assess the long-term patient outcomes, including the resolution of symptoms and need for subsequent procedures, after vaginal mesh removals (VMR) we evaluate our 14-year experience with VMR from a tertiary center with three FPMRS-trained surgeons. Although the use of transvaginal mesh (TVM) had decreased significantly before its ban in 2019, surgeons are still treating TVM complications and performing vaginal or open/robotic VMR for mesh-related complications.

      Methods

      A retrospective review of women undergoing VMR with 6 months minimum follow-up was undertaken. The data abstracted included demographics, provider notes, operative reports, pathology findings, outside medical records, peri-operative information, and reoperations.

      Results

      From 2006 to 2020, 133 patients were identified, and 113 patients met study criteria with at least 6 months follow-up. The most common presenting symptoms were dyspareunia (77%) and pain (71%). The majority of VMR were performed vaginally (84.5%). Vaginal mesh was removed from anterior (60%), posterior (11%), and anterior and posterior (10%) compartments. Two ureteral injuries and one rectal injury were repaired intraoperatively.
      VMR resulted in resolution of pain in 50% of patients. Some patients had persistent pain (21%) and a few developed de novo pain (4%). More than half of the patients had dyspareunia resolution (52%), but 12% had persistent dyspareunia and 2% developed de novo dyspareunia.

      Conclusion

      VMR complexity requires advanced surgical expertise. Most patients undergoing VMR had resolution of their presenting symptoms. However, outcomes for pain, sexual function, continence, and/or prolapse can be unpredictable, resulting in multiple surgeries.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Helström L
        • Nilsson B.
        Impact of vaginal surgery on sexuality and quality of life in women with urinary incontinence or genital descensus.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. Jan 2005; 84: 79-84https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00668.x
        • Olsen AL
        • Smith VJ
        • Bergstrom JO
        • et al.
        Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Obstetrics and gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6
        • Julian TM.
        The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 1472-1475https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70092-3
        • Iyer S
        • Botros SM.
        Transvaginal mesh: a historical review and update of the current state of affairs in the United States.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28: 527-535https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3092-7
      1. FDA. Safety communications: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Updated July 13, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm

      2. FDA. Public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Updated October 20, 2008. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm

      3. Administration USFaD. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Implants. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants

        • Carter P
        • Fou L
        • Whiter F
        • et al.
        Management of mesh complications following surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.
        BJOG. 2020; 127: 28-35https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15958
        • Winkelman WD
        • Modest AM
        • Richardson ML
        U.S. food and drug administration statements about transvaginal mesh and changes in apical prolapse surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134: 745-752https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003488
        • Warembourg S
        • Labaki M
        • de Tayrac R
        • et al.
        Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28: 1139-1151https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3256-5
        • Cardenas-Trowers OO
        • Malekzadeh P
        • Nix DE
        • et al.
        Vaginal mesh removal outcomes: eight years of experience at an academic hospital.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23: 382-386https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000419
        • Bergersen A
        • Price E
        • Callegari M
        • et al.
        Pain resolution and recurrent prolapse rates following vaginal mesh removal.
        Urology. 2021; 150: 134-138https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.057
        • South MMT
        • Foster RT
        • Webster GD
        • et al.
        Surgical excision of eroded mesh after prior abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 615.e1-615.e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.012
        • Lee D
        • Dillon B
        • Lemack G
        • et al.
        Transvaginal mesh kits–how “serious” are the complications and are they reversible?.
        Urology. 2013; 81: 43-48https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.07.098
        • Ismail S
        • Chartier-Kastler E
        • Reus C
        • et al.
        Functional outcomes of synthetic tape and mesh revision surgeries: a monocentric experience.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30: 805-813https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3727-y
        • Skala CE
        • Renezeder K
        • Albrich S
        • et al.
        Mesh complications following prolapse surgery: management and outcome.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 159: 453-456https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.07.024
        • Danford JM
        • Osborn DJ
        • Reynolds WS
        • et al.
        Postoperative pain outcomes after transvaginal mesh revision.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 65-69https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2455-1
        • MacDonald S
        • Terlecki R
        • Costantini E
        • et al.
        Complications of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: tips for prevention, recognition, and management.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2016; 2: 260-267https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.06.016
        • Crosby EC
        • Abernethy M
        • Berger MB
        • et al.
        Symptom resolution after operative management of complications from transvaginal mesh.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 134-139https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000042
        • Tijdink MM
        • Vierhout ME
        • Heesakkers JP
        • et al.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22: 1395https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1476-2