Advertisement

Endovaginal Imaging: Vaginal Mesh and Implants

  • Jittima Manonai
  • Pouya Javadian
  • S. Abbas Shobeiri
Chapter

Abstract

With rapid adoption of vaginal mesh kits into urogynecologic practice, the complications that followed were beyond the scope of practice for most practicing urogynecologists. The approach to management of implanted material has been made easy due to the fact that the polypropylene mesh is easily visualized with ultrasound, given its pathognomonic appearance. For those skilled in its use, ultrasound is an undeniable advantage. 3D endovaginal ultrasonography (EVUS) provides further benefit in its ability to access deep pelvic spaces that harbor mesh remnants.

Keywords

Mesh Implants Mesh kits Echogenic Mesh complications Vaginal mesh 

References

  1. 1.
    Schuettoff S, Beyersdorff D, Gauruder-Burmester A, Tunn R. 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(6):687–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer T, Ladurner R, Gangkofer A, Mussack T, Reiser M, Lienemann A. 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(12):3123–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manonai J, Rostaminia G, Denson L, Shobeiri SA. Clinical and ultrasonographic study of patients presenting with transvaginal mesh complications. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(3):407–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tunn R, Picot A, Marschke J, Gauruder-Burmester A. Sonomorphological evaluation of polypropylene mesh implants after vaginal mesh repair in women with cystocele or rectocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(4):449–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denson L, Shobeiri SA. Three-dimensional endovaginal sonography of synthetic implanted materials in the female pelvic floor. J Ultrasound Med. 2014;33(3):521–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Velemir L, Amblard J, Fatton B, Savary D, Jacquetin B. Transvaginal mesh repair of anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse: a clinical and ultrasonographic study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(4):474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Dietz HP, Mellgren A, Sultan AH, Shobeiri SA, et al. State of the art: an integrated approach to pelvic floor ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(4):381–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietz HP. Mesh in prolapse surgery: an imaging perspective. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(5):495–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Svabík K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P, Pavlikova M. Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation—evidence of mesh contraction or folding? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(5):529–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong V, Shek K, Goh J, Krause H, Martin A, Dietz HP. Cystocele recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy with and without mesh use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:131–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lo TS, Ashok K. Combined anterior trans-obturator mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation in women with severe prolapse-a case series of 30 months follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):299–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Babalola EO, Bharucha AE, Melton 3rd LJ, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Klingele CJ, et al. Utilization of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1965-2002. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(9):1243–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, Delancey JO. Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):678.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brincat C, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Patel D, Sampselle C, Miller J, Delancey JO, et al. Fecal incontinence in pregnancy and post partum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106(3):236–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;30(4):CD004014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: FDA Safety Communication. 13 July 2011. Last Updated: 6 Oct 2014. Available from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 9 Nov 2016.
  20. 20.
    Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V, Pelvic Surgeons Network. 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. 2012;23(1):5–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jakus SM, Shapiro A, Hall CD. Biologic and synthetic graft use in pelvic surgery: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63(4):253–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    US Food & Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 884. [Federal Register Docket No. FDA–2014–N–0297]. Reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair and surgical instrumentation for urogynecologic surgical mesh procedures; designation of special controls for urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation. 1 May 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Horak TA, Guzman-Rojas RA, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Pelvic floor trauma: does the second baby matter? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):90–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Von Theobald P. Place of mesh in vaginal surgery, including its removal and revision. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(2):197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rogowski A, Bienkowski P, Tosiak A, Jerzak M, Mierzejewski P, Baranowski W. Mesh retraction correlates with vaginal pain and overactive bladder symptoms after anterior vaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2087–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staack A, Vitale J, Ragavendra N, Rodriguez LV. Translabial ultrasonography for evaluation of synthetic mesh in the vagina. Urology. 2014;83(1):68–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fleischer AC, Harvey SM, Kurita SC, Andreotti RF, Zimmerman CW. Two−/three-dimensional transperineal sonography of complicated tape and mesh implants. Ultrasound Q. 2012;28(4):243–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khatri G, Carmel ME, Bailey AA, Foreman MR, Brewington CC, Zimmern PE, et al. Postoperative imaging after surgical repair for pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2016;36(4):1233–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1445–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Barski D, Otto T, Gerullis H. Systematic review and classification of complications after anterior, posterior, apical, and total vaginal mesh implantation for prolapse repair. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:217–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haylen B, Freeman RM, Swift S, Cosson M, Davila G, Deprest J, et al. 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. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miklos JR, Chinthakanan O, Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Favors S, Karp DR, et al. The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(6):933–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feiner B, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):325–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Letouzey V, De Tayrac R, Deffieux X, Fernandez H. Long-term anatomical and functional results after trans-vaginal cystocele repair using a tension-free polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:S82–3.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown BN, Sicari BM, Badylak SF. Rethinking regenerative medicine: a macrophage-centered approach. Front Immunol. 2014;5:510.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Urbaniak C, Cummins J, Brackstone M, Macklaim JM, Gloor GB, Baban CK, et al. Microbiota of human breast tissue. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2014;80(10):3007–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brubaker L, Nager CW, Richter HE, Visco A, Nygaard I, Barber MD, et al. Urinary bacteria in adult women with urgency urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1179–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pearce MM, Hilt EE, Rosenfeld AB, Zilliox MJ, Thomas-White K, Fok C, et al. The female urinary microbiome: a comparison of women with and without urgency urinary incontinence. MBio. 2014;5(4):e01283-14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sicari BM, Dearth CL, Badylak SF. Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine approaches to enhance the functional response to skeletal muscle injury. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2014;297(1):51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith C, Kruger MJ, Smith RM, Myburgh KH. The inflammatory response to skeletal muscle injury: illuminating complexities. Sports Med. 2008;38(11):947–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Javadian P, O’Leary D. Vaginally placed meshes: a review of their complications, risk factors, and management. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2015;4(2):96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1859–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Huffaker RK, Shull BL, Thomas JS. A serious complication following placement of posterior Prolift. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(11):1383–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Firoozi F, Goldman H. Transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder after mesh placement using a prolapse kit: a novel technique. Urology. 2010;75(1):203–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alvarez Garzon HJ, Jacquemet B, Mottet N, Kleinclauss F, Riethmuller D, Ramanah R. Endoscopic lithotripsy and vaginal excision of a calcified bladder- mesh extrusion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1113–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Firoozi F, Goldman HB. Pure transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):925–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ostergard D, Azadi A. To mesh or not to mesh with polypropylene: does carcinogenesis in animals matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(5):569–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goldman H, Dwyer P. Polypropylene mesh slings and cancer: an incidental finding or association? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(3):345–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    King AB, Zampini A, Vasavada S, Moore C, Rackley R, Goldman H. Is there an association between polypropylene midurethral slings and malignancy? Urology. 2014;84(4):789–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Linder B, Trabuco E, Carranza D, Gebhart J, Klingele C, Occhino J. Evaluation of the local carcinogenic potential of mesh used in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1333–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lee D, Zimmern P. Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(4):284–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lone F, Sultan AH, Stankiewicz A, Thakar R, Wieczorek AP. Vascularity of the urethra in continent women using colour doppler high-frequency endovaginal ultrasonography. Springerplus. 2014;3:619. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-619.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shobeiri S, Nihira MA, Quiroz L. In vivo ultrasound characteristics of vaginal mesh kit complications (abstract). Oral Poster 26. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(Suppl 1):S48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jittima Manonai
    • 1
  • Pouya Javadian
    • 2
  • S. Abbas Shobeiri
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyNewark Beth Israel Medical CenterNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyGynecologic Subspecialties, INOVA Women’s Hospital, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityFalls ChurchUSA
  4. 4.Department of BioengineeringGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations