Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Radiological Characterization of Synthetic Mesh in Female Urological Procedures: a Review of the Literature

  • Voiding Dysfunction Evaluation (B Brucker and B Peyronnet, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Surgical mesh is now commonplace among many urogynecologic procedures. Post-surgical imaging of mesh is useful when complications including mesh erosion, bleeding, and chronic pain arise. Different types of mesh coated with various materials have been developed to improve visibility on imaging studies. However, localization of surgical mesh after implantation remains challenging as visualization with standard imaging is difficult. The purpose of this study was to review the various radiologic approaches to characterizing synthetic surgical meshes.

Recent Findings

A systematic and comprehensive literature search was performed by two independent reviewers using the PubMed database of the National Library of Medicine to identify all potentially relevant publications published before April 2020. Studies assessing the use of imaging for surgical mesh in both urogynecologic and non-urogyneocologic procedures were included. Iron impregnated mesh was most visible on imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). Impregnated mesh was also shown to be more readily visible on ultrasound when compared to its non-iron containing counterpart. Non-impregnated expanded polytetrafluorethylene mesh (EPTF Mesh) was visible on CT and MRI. The more commonly used polypropylene and polyvinylidene mesh were more readily visualized on ultrasound although localization of surrounding structures remains difficult.

Summary

Imaging surgical mesh poses an ongoing problem when complications arise. Although particle impregnated mesh is visible on CT and MRI, the adoption of this practice is still in its infancy. The ability to visualize EPTF mesh on CT and MRI is a promising advancement, but proper visualization of the more common synthetic meshes remains a limitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Health C for D and R: Urogynecologic surgical mesh implants. FDA 2019. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-and-prosthetics/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants, accessed March 16, 2020.

  2. Köckerling F, Schug-Pass C. What do we know about titanized polypropylene meshes? An evidence-based review of the literature. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg. 2014;18:445–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Falagas ME, Velakoulis S, Iavazzo C, et al. Mesh-related infections after pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;134:147–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lo T-S. One-year outcome of concurrent anterior and posterior transvaginal mesh surgery for treatment of advanced urogenital prolapse: case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:473–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shah HN, Badlani GH. Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: a systematic review. Indian J Urol. 2012;28:129–53 (IJU J Urol. Soc. India).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rakic S, LeBlanc KA. The radiologic appearance of prosthetic materials used in hernia repair and a recommended classification. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:1180–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Laitakari KE, Mäkelä-Kaikkonen JK, Pääkkö E, et al. A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy. Tech Coloproctology. 2019;23:633–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brocker KA, Mokry T, Alt CD, et al. 3D reconstruction of MR-visible Fe3O4-mesh implants: pelvic mesh measurement techniques and preliminary findings. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:369–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisenberg VH, Callewaert G, Sindhwani N, et al. Ultrasound visualization of sacrocolpopexy polyvinylidene fluoride meshes containing paramagnetic Fe particles compared with polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecology J. 2019;30:795–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Viragh KA, Cohen SA, Raz S, et al. Translabial ultrasound in midurethral sling (mesh) visualization and erosion detection in women with stress urinary incontinence: a retrospective pilot study. Ultrasound Q. 2018;34:238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Staack A, Vitale J, Ragavendra N, et al. Translabial ultrasonography for evaluation of synthetic mesh in the vagina. Urology. 2014;83:68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wen L, Shek KL, Subramaniam N, Friedman T, Dietz HP. Correlations between sonographic and urodynamic findings after mid urethral sling surgery. J Urol. 2018;199(6):1571–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.046 (Epub 2017 Dec 26 PMID: 29288123).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schuettoff S, Beyersdorff D, Gauruder-Burmester A, et al. Visibility of the polypropylene tape after tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure in women with stress urinary incontinence: comparison of introital ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in vitro and in vivo. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:687–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenberg VH, Steinberg M, Weiner Z, et al. Three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound for imaging mesh implants following sacrocolpopexy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:459–65 (Off. J. Int. Soc. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tunn R, Picot A, Marschke J, et al. Sonomorphological evaluation of polypropylene mesh implants after vaginal mesh repair in women with cystocele or rectocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:449–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen L, Lenz F, Alt CD, et al. MRI visible Fe3O4 polypropylene mesh: 3D reconstruction of spatial relation to bony pelvis and neurovascular structures. Int Urogynecology J. 2017;28:1131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Köhler G, Pallwein-Prettner L, Koch OO, et al: Magnetic resonance–visible meshes for laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. JSLS 2015; 19. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379865/, accessed April 10, 2020.

  18. Özveri E, Şanlı DET, Yıldırım D, et al: Magnetic resonance visualization of iron-loaded meshes in patients with pain after inguinal hernia repair. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg. 2020.

  19. Hansen NL, Barabasch A, Distelmaier M, et al. First in-human magnetic resonance visualization of surgical mesh implants for inguinal hernia treatment. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:770–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carter PR, LeBlanc KA, Hausmann MG, et al. Does expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh really shrink after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair? Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg. 2012;16:321–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Schoenmaeckers EJP, van der Valk SBA, van den Hout HW, et al. Computed tomographic measurements of mesh shrinkage after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene mesh. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1620–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fischer T, Ladurner R, Gangkofer A, et al. Functional cine MRI of the abdomen for the assessment of implanted synthetic mesh in patients after incisional hernia repair: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:3123–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gossios K, Zikou A, Vazakas P, et al. Value of CT after laparoscopic repair of postsurgical ventral hernia. Abdom Imaging. 2003;28:99–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jamadar DA, Jacobson JA, Girish G, et al. Abdominal wall hernia mesh repair: sonography of mesh and common complications. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:907–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Anon: GORE® DUALMESH® Biomaterial. Gore Med. Available at: https://www.goremedical.com/products/dualmesh, accessed June 16, 2020.

  26. Koehler RH, Begos D, Berger D, et al. Minimal adhesions to ePTFE mesh after laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair: reoperative findings in 65 cases. JSLS. 2003;7:335–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Iglesia CB, Fenner DE, Brubaker L. The use of mesh in gynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecology J. 1997;8:105–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Krämer NA, Donker HCW, Otto J, et al. A concept for magnetic resonance visualization of surgical textile implants. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:477–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhu L-M, Schuster P, Klinge U. Mesh implants: an overview of crucial mesh parameters. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7:226–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Berrevoet F, Vanlander A, Bontinck J, et al. Open preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernias using a mesh with nitinol memory frame. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg. 2013;17:365–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Baylón K, Rodríguez-Camarillo P, Elías-Zúñiga A, et al. Past, present and future of surgical meshes: a review. Membranes. 2017;7:47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F. Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA. 2016;316:1575–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharma R, Fadaee N, Zarrinkhoo E, et al. Why we remove mesh. Hernia J Hernias Abdom Wall Surg. 2018;22:953–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia. 2009;13:343–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Parra JA, Revuelta S, Gallego T, et al. Prosthetic mesh used for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: normal appearance and complications in ultrasound and CT. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:261–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA

    Ariza Martinez & Joshua Patino

  2. Division of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA

    Aditya Srinivasan, Preston S. Kerr & Bilal Farhan

Authors
  1. Ariza Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditya Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Preston S. Kerr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joshua Patino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bilal Farhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bilal Farhan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical collection on Voiding Dysfunction Evaluation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinez, A., Srinivasan, A., Kerr, P.S. et al. Radiological Characterization of Synthetic Mesh in Female Urological Procedures: a Review of the Literature. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 17, 81–90 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-022-00652-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-022-00652-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation