Vaginal Mesh and Pain Complications

  • Ghazaleh Rostaminia
  • Tanaz Ferzandi
  • S. Abbas ShobeiriEmail author


In pelvic reconstructive surgery, the school of thought that fascial defects are a primary etiology for development of pelvic organ prolapse has led to increased graft utilization to augment fascial strength in an attempt to promote repair longevity and permanence. Grafts serve to strengthen attenuated tissue and enhance healing in areas with compromised tissue integrity. However, the use of synthetic mesh or biologic grafts in pelvic organ prolapse surgery is associated with unique complications not seen in repair with native tissue including pain that can be debilitating for patient. Pain can be a result of direct nerve injury during mesh placement or delayed neuropathy due to fibrosis, or mesh shrinkage. There is also a human factor involved in reactivity to mesh in vivo. Some individuals are “high responders,” and others are “low responders” in the formation of fibrous tissue as stimulated by the presence of the mesh. Treating pain complication after mesh placement requires complete work up and can be challenging in presence of neuropathy.


Vaginal mesh Pelvic pain Mesh complications Mesh neuropathy 


  1. 1.
    Patel H, Ostergard DR, Sternschuss G. Polypropylene mesh and the host response. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(6):669–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ostergard DR. Polypropylene vaginal mesh grafts in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(4):962–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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, Part 1):242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abbott S, Unger CA, Evans JM, Jallad K, Mishra K, Karram MM, et al. Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):163.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pickett SD, Barenberg B, Quiroz LH, Shobeiri SA, OʼLeary DE. The significant morbidity of removing pelvic mesh from multiple vaginal compartments. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(6):1418–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, 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 Urodynam. 2011;30(1):2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parnell BA, Johnson EA, Zolnoun DA. Genitofemoral and perineal neuralgia after transobturator midurethral sling. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 2):428–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanses TV, Shahryarinejad A, Molden S, Hoskey KA, Abbasy S, Patterson D, Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network, et al. Anatomic outcomes of vaginal mesh procedure (Prolift) compared with uterosacral ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):519.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amid PK. Classification of biomaterials and their related complications in abdominal wall hernia surgery. Hernia. 1997;1(1):15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gristina AG, Naylor PT, Myrvik QN. Biomaterial-centered infections: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. In: Torkel Wadström T, Eliasson I, Holder I, Ljungh A, editors. Pathogenesis of wound and biomaterial-associated infections. London: Springer-Verlag; 1990. p. 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Müller M, Öttinger A, Schumpelick V. Shrinking of polypropylene mesh in vivo: an experimental study in dogs. Eur J Surg. 1998;164(12):965–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feiner F, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction, definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2):325–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bent AE, Cundiff GW, Swift SE, editors. Ostergard’s urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Wolters Kluwer; 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prather H, Spitznagle TM, Dugan SA. Recognizing and treating pelvic pain and pelvic floor dysfunction. Phys Med Rehab Clin N Am. 2007;18(3):477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore K, Dalley AF. Clinically oriented anatomy. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins/Wolters Kluwer; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barber MD, Bremer RE, Thor KB, Dolber PC, Kuehl TJ, Coates KW. Innervation of the female levator ani muscles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(1):64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giri SK, Wallis F, Drumm J, Saunders JA, Flood HD. A magnetic resonance imaging-based study of retropubic haematoma after sling procedures: preliminary findings. BJU Int. 2005;96(7):1067–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Debodinance P, Delporte P, Engrand J, Boulogne M. Development of better tolerated prosthetic materials: applications in gynecological surgery. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2002;31(6):527–40. [Article in French].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clavé A, Yahi H, Hammou J-C, Montanari S, Gounon P, Clavé H. Polypropylene as a reinforcement in pelvic surgery is not inert: comparative analysis of 100 explants. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):261–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    García-Ureña MÁ, Ruiz VV, Godoy AD, Perea JMB, Gómez LM, Hernández FJ, et al. Differences in polypropylene shrinkage depending on mesh position in an experimental study. Am J Surg. 2007;193(4):538–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Achtari C, McKenzie BJ, Hiscock R, Rosamilia A, Schierlitz L, Briggs CA, et al. Anatomical study of the obturator foramen and dorsal nerve of the clitoris and their relationship to minimally invasive slings. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):330–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ghazaleh Rostaminia
    • 1
  • Tanaz Ferzandi
    • 2
  • S. Abbas Shobeiri
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery NorthShore University Health System/University of ChicagoSkokieUSA
  2. 2.Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyTufts Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.INOVA Health SystemFalls ChurchUSA

Personalised recommendations