Advertisement

Outcomes of Vaginal Mesh Surgeries

  • Miles Murphy
  • Michael Ting
  • Vincent R. Lucente
Chapter

Abstract

While the transvaginal placement of synthetic mesh has been used to treat pelvic floor disorders for over 20 years, this surgical technique is still a point of deliberation among experts in the field. Placing mesh through a vaginal incision for the treatment of stress incontinence is widely considered to be the standard procedure for surgical treatment of this condition. However, new techniques – such as single-incision slings – are still somewhat controversial. Vaginal mesh for prolapse is perhaps one of the most debated surgical techniques in gynecology since the turn of the millennium, with one of the common criticisms being that there is a paucity of quality outcome data associated with this technique. The goal of this chapter is to review and interpret these outcomes.

Keywords

Vaginal mesh Surgical outcomes Pelvic organ prolapse Stress urinary incontinence Sling Quality of life 

References

  1. 1.
    Julian T. The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1472–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulmsten U, Falconer C, Johnson P, Jomaa M, Lannér L, Nilsson CG, Olsson I. A multicenter study of tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1998;9(4):210–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Clavé H, Cosson M, Garbin O, Jacquetin B, et al. Changing attitudes on the surgical treatment of urogenital prolapse: birth of the tension-free vaginal mesh. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33(7):577–88. [Article in French].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wall LL, Brown D. Commercial pressures and professional ethics: troubling revisions to the recent ACOG practice bulletins on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(7):765–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schimpf MO, Abed H, Sanses T, White AB, Lowenstein L, Ward RM, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group, et al. Graft and mesh use in transvaginal prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):81–91.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55. ReviewCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gadjiev N, Tabaza R, Kirschner-Hermanns R. Mini-slings: What is known about anchorage systems? (abstract). Scientific programme, 42nd annual meeting of the international continence society, 15–19 Oct 2012, Beijing, China. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(6):730–1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levi A, Nasra R, Shachar IB, Braun NM. Medium-term results of mini-arc for urinary stress incontinence in ambulatory patients under local anesthesia. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(6):1195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nager CW. Midurethral slings: evidence-based medicine vs the medicolegal system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(6):708.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nambiar A, Cody JD, Jeffery ST. Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD008709. Review.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mostafa A, Lim CP, Hopper L, Madhuvrata P, Abdel-Fattah M. Single-incision mini-slings versus standard midurethral slings in surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and complications. Eur Urol. 2014;65(2):402–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee JK, Rosamilia A, Dwyer PL, Lim YN, Muller R. Randomized trial of a single incision versus an outside-in transobturator midurethral sling in women with stress urinary incontinence: 12 month results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):35.e1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tutolo M, De Ridder DJ, Montorsi F, Castagna G, Deprest J, Schellart RP, et al. A minimum of 1-year follow-up for MiniArc single incision slings compared to Monarc transobturator slings: an analysis to evaluate durability of continence and medium-term outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):803–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kocjancic E, Erickson T, Tu LM, Gheiler E, Van Drie D. Two-year outcomes for the Altis® adjustable single incision sling system for treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(6):1582–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serels S, Dususo M. Long term follow up of the Solyx single incision sling in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Open J Urol. 2014;4(2):13–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Weiss NS. Incidence of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse 10 years following primary surgical management: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(11):1483–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Northington GM, Hudson CO, Karp D, Huber SA. Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mains LM, Magnus M, Finan M. Perioperative morbidity and mortality from major gynecologic surgery in the elderly woman. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(8):677–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB, Brubaker L, Gutman RE, Varner RE, Pelvic Floor Network, et al. Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(1.):78.e1-78.e7):78.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(2 Pt 2):455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E, Takala T, Niemi K, Merikari M, Heinonen PK. Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int J Urogynecol. 2008;19(12):1611–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):235.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, PROSPECT Study Group, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moore RD, Beyer RD, Jacoby K, Freedman SJ, McCammon KA, Gambla MT. Prospective multicenter trial assessing type I, polypropylene mesh placed via transobturator route for the treatment of anterior vaginal prolapse with 2-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):545–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moore RD, Lukban JC. Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1379–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Karmakar D, Hayward L, Smalldridge J, Lin S. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single Centre. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(8):1161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B. 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. 2007;18(7):743–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elmér C, Altman D, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Väyrynen T, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):117–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Raalte HM, Lucente VR, Molden SM, Haff R, Murphy M. One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the Prolift® procedure for treatment of posthysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:694.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Murphy M, Sternschuss G, Haff R, van Raalte H, Saltz S, Lucente V. Quality of life and surgical satisfaction after vaginal reconstructive vs obliterative surgery for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):573.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2, Pt 1):242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Peterson JL, Wang H, Iglesia CB. Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(4):770–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, Svabik K, Mlcoch M, Kolarik D, et al. A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterecomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):301.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;42(4):365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad JM, de Jármy-Di Bella ZI, Nastri F, Kawabata MG, da Silva Carramão S, et al. Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang FM, He CN, Song YF. Prospective study of transobturator mesh kit (Prolift®™) in pelvic reconstructive surgery with vaginal hysterectomy after 3 years’ follow-up. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(2):355–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Khandwala S. Transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: one-year outcome analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):84–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alperin M, Ellison R, Meyn L, Frankman E, Zyczynski HM. Two-year outcomes after vaginal prolapse reconstruction with mesh pelvic floor repair system. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):72–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gad N, Duvvuru A, Burchgart B. Outcome of Prolift® mesh repair in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and its effect on lower urinary tract symptoms: 5-year retrospective case study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39(1):243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Benbouzid S, Cornu JN, Benchikh A, Chanu T, Haab F, Delmas V. Pelvic organ prolapse transvaginal repair by the Prolift® system: evaluation of efficacy and complications after a 4.5 years follow up. Int J Urol. 2012;19(11):1010–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot JP, Deken V, Foidart JM, Cosson M. Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift® mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):83.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Huang WC, Lin TY, Lau HH, Chen SS, Hsieh CH, Su TH. Outcome of transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery with Prolift® after a median of 2 years’ follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lo TS. 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(4):473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wetta LA, Gerten KA, Wheeler TL 2nd, Holley RL, Varner RE, Richter HE. Synthetic graft use in vaginal prolapse surgery: objective and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(11):1307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lukban JC, Roovers JP, Vandrie DM, Erickson T, Zylstra S, Patel MP, Moore RD. Single-incision apical and posterior mesh repair: 1-year prospective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP, Courtieu C, Lukban JC, Bataller E, et al. Elevate anterior/apical: 12-month data showing safety and efficacy in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wong V, Shek KL, Rane A, Lee J, Rosamilia A, Dietz HP. A comparison of two different mesh kit systems for anterior compartment prolapse repair. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;54(3):212–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lo TS, Bt Karim N, Cortes EF, Wu PY, Lin YH, Tan YL. Comparison between elevate anterior/apical system and Perigee™ system in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: clinical and sonographic outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Long CY, Wang CL, Wu MP, Wu CH, Lin KL, Liu CM, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes using “elevate anterior” versus “Perigee™” system devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Biomed Res Int. 2015:479610.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rogowski A, Bienkowski P, Tarwacki D, Szafarowska M, Samochowiec J, Sienkiewicz-Jarosz H, et al. Retrospective comparison between the Prolift® and elevate anterior vaginal mesh procedures: 18-month clinical outcome. Int J Urogynecol. 2015;26(12):1815–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, Gafni-Kane A, Nguyen A, Du H, Goldberg RP. Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int J Urogynecol. 2012;23(12):1753–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jirschele K, Seitz M, Zhou Y, Rosenblatt P, Culligan P, Sand P. A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int J Urogynecol. 2015;26(5):743–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Letouzey V, Ulrich D, Balenbois E, Cornille A, de Tayrac R, Fatton B. Utero-vaginal suspension using bilateral vaginal anterior sacrospinous fixation with mesh: intermediate results of a cohort study. Int J Urogynecol. 2015;26(12):1803–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Altman D, Mikkola TS, Bek KM, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Gunnarsson J, Engh ME, Falconer C, Nordic TVM group. Pelvic organ prolapse repair using the Uphold™ vaginal support system: a 1-year multicenter study. Int J Urogynecol. 2016;27(9):1337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):38.e1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ehsani N, Ghafar MA, Antosh DD, Tan-Kim J, Warner WB, Mamik MM, et al. Risk factors for mesh extrusion after prolapse surgery: a case-control study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(6):357–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, Balk EM, Uhlig K, Lau J, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group, et al. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(5):1131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG, Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int J Urogynecol. 2011;22(7):789–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079. Review.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, Kluivers KB, Milani AL. Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tensions-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Elmér C, Falconer C, Hallin A, Larsson G, Ek M, Altman D, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(7):1165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Araco F, Gravante G, Sorge R, De Vita D, Piccione E. Risk evaluation of smoking and age on the occurrence of postoperative erosions after transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(4):473–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M. Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogyneco J. 2006;17(4):315–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014. ReviewPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(11):1317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nieminen K, Huhtala H, Heinonen PK. Anatomic and functional assessment and risk factors for recurrent prolapse after vaginal sacrospinous fixation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(5):471–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Martin LA, Calixte R, Finamore PS. Reoperation after robotic and vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):315–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jambusaria LH, Murphy M, Lucente VR. One-year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Juliato CR, Santos Júnior LC, Haddad JM, Castro RA, Lima M, Castro EB. Mesh surgery for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38(7):356–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Ignjatovic I, Stojkovic I, Basic D, Medojevic N, Potic M. Optimal primary minimally invasive treatment for patients with stress urinary incontinence and symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: tension free slings with colporrhaphy, or Prolift® with the tension free midurethral sling? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(1):97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG. 2011;118(12):1518–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, Swidan KH, El-Etriby MA. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(4):965–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Turgal M, Sivaslioglu A, Yildiz A, Dolen I. Anatomical and functional assessment of anterior colporrhaphy versus polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):555–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, Guilbaud O, Mansoor A, Alonso S, et al. Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1651–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gupta B, Vaid NB, Suneja A, Guleria K, Jain S. Anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomised trial of traditional anterior colporrhaphy and self-tailored mesh repair. South African J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;20:47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lamblin G, Van-Nieuwenhuyse A, Chabert P, Lebail-Carval K, Moret S, Mellier G. A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):961–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1337–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P. Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2014;121:102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miles Murphy
    • 1
  • Michael Ting
    • 2
  • Vincent R. Lucente
    • 3
  1. 1.The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryNorth WalesUSA
  2. 2.Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt Luke’s University Health NetworkBethlehemUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt Luke’s University Health NetworkBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations