Observational analysis of mesh related complications in urogynecologic procedures

  • Bassel AbouzeidEmail author
  • Georges El Hasbani
  • Imad Mufarrij
Review Article


Since the 1990s, the use of mesh has expanded in gynecologic surgeries in the aim of correcting pelvic organ prolapse. Because there has been a lot of complications that were reported, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has requested the withdrawal of many products from the market. Recently, many countries have called for the suspension of vaginal mesh products from the market. The objective of this review is to analyze the incidence of the complications that arise after vaginal mesh surgeries with an insight to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations on the management of those complications.


Pelvic organ prolapse Mesh use Graft complications 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Bassel Abouzeid, MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Georges El Hasbani, MD declares that he has no conflict of interest. Imad Mufarrij, MD, MS, FACOG declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Davidson ER, Casas-Puig V, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Ferrando C (2019) Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and patient-centered outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal uterosacral ligament and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. (publish ahead of print) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369(9566):1027–1038. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott NW, McCormack K, Graham P, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant AM (2002) Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD002197. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bezerra CA, Bruschini H (2001) Suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD001754. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Clavé H et al (2004) Changing attitudes on the surgical treatment of urogenital prolapse: birth of the tension-free vaginal mesh. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 33(7):577–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(7):743–752. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H et al (2012) Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J 23(1):5–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI et al (2008) Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 112(5):1131–1142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellington DR, Richter HE (2013) Indications, contraindications, and complications of mesh in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 56(2):276–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milani AL, Damoiseaux A, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ (2018) Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 29(6):847–858. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mangir N, Roman S, Chapple CR, MacNeil S (2019) Complications related to use of mesh implants in surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: infection or inflammation? World J Urol. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gynecological mesh: The medical device that has 100,000 women suing. Accessed 19 May 2019
  14. 14.
    Kaplan S, Goldstein M (2019) F.D.A. Halts U.S. sales of pelvic mesh, citing safety concerns for women. The New York Times. Accessed 19 May 2019
  15. 15.
    (2017) Management of mesh and graft complications in gynecologic surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23(3):171–176.
  16. 16.
    Manzano JP, da Crochik FS, Pugliesi FG, de Almeida RVS, de Melo PA, Nunes RLV (2019) Robot-assisted infratrigonal vesicovaginal fistula repair. Case Rep Urol. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Melody GF (1955) PARAVAGINAL HEMATOMAS—their recognition and management postpartum. Calif Med 82(1):16–18Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Monib S, Ritchie A, Thabet E (2011) Idiopathic retroperitoneal hematoma. J Surg Tech Case Rep 3(1):49–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lagerbäck T, Fritzell P, Hägg O et al (2018) Effectiveness of surgery for sciatica with disc herniation is not substantially affected by differences in surgical incidences among three countries: results from the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian spine registries. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuponiyi O, Alleemudder DI, Latunde-Dada A, Eedarapalli P (2014) Nerve injuries associated with gynaecological surgery. Obstet Gynaecol 16(1):29–36. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Khodairy AWT, Bovay P, Gobelet C (2007) Sciatica in the female patient: anatomical considerations, aetiology and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 16(6):721–731. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sorensen J, Bautista KE, Lamvu G, Feranec J (2018) Evaluation and treatment of female sexual pain: a clinical review. Cureus. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    (2007) Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 28th ed. Ref Rev 21(1):41–42.
  24. 24.
    Mock S, Reynolds WS, Dmochowski RR (2014) Trans-vaginal mesh revision: a comprehensive review on etiologies and management strategies with emphasis on postoperative pain outcomes. LUTS Low Urin Tract Symptoms 6(2):69–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitchell L, King M, Brillhart H, Goldstein A (2017) Cervical ectropion may be a cause of desquamative inflammatory vaginitis. Sex Med 5(3):e212–e214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robinson D, Staskin D, Laterza RM, Koelbl H (2012) Defining female voiding dysfunction: ICI-RS 2011. Neurourol Urodyn 31(3):313–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aoki Y, Brown HW, Brubaker L, Cornu JN, Daly JO, Cartwright R (2017) Urinary incontinence in women. Nat Rev Dis Primer 3:17042. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bassel Abouzeid
    • 1
    Email author
  • Georges El Hasbani
    • 2
  • Imad Mufarrij
    • 3
  1. 1.École des Hautes Études en Santé PubliqueRennesFrance
  2. 2.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  3. 3.The George Washington University HospitalWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations