Shilpa Iyer1, Sylvia M Botros2. 1. Department of Urogynecology, North Shore University Health Systems, 3950 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA. SIyer@northshore.org. 2. Department of Urogynecology, North Shore University Health Systems, 3950 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transvaginal mesh usage has been at the forefront of popular media and academic debate for the past 10 years. Several US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communications, society statements, and research articles have been written in an attempt to define and articulate the classification system, safety data, and efficacy of this approach to transvaginal surgery. In this review, we explore the history of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), review FDA and society statements, and research current practice in the United States. METHODS: We searched the English language literature using PubMed for articles related to safety and monitoring of transvaginal mesh and reviewed all FDA publication and notices and gynecology and urogynecology society statements on its use in the United States. We then reviewed 22 articles and grouped them into several sections. RESULTS: Mesh used to augment transvaginal repair of POP was introduced in the United States in 2005 without clinical safety and efficacy data. In the subsequent years of use, both major and minor complications were increasingly reported, leading to several FDA notifications and warnings. The type of mesh used, reporting and classifications systems, and provider usage has varied widely over time. CONCLUSION: We present a historical review of transvaginal mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States from 2005 to 2016. There continues to be heated debate among practitioners about balancing the efficacy of mesh use to decrease recurrent prolapse and complications. Research into safety and efficacy, along with tighter FDA regulations, is ongoing.
INTRODUCTION: Transvaginal mesh usage has been at the forefront of popular media and academic debate for the past 10 years. Several US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communications, society statements, and research articles have been written in an attempt to define and articulate the classification system, safety data, and efficacy of this approach to transvaginal surgery. In this review, we explore the history of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), review FDA and society statements, and research current practice in the United States. METHODS: We searched the English language literature using PubMed for articles related to safety and monitoring of transvaginal mesh and reviewed all FDA publication and notices and gynecology and urogynecology society statements on its use in the United States. We then reviewed 22 articles and grouped them into several sections. RESULTS: Mesh used to augment transvaginal repair of POP was introduced in the United States in 2005 without clinical safety and efficacy data. In the subsequent years of use, both major and minor complications were increasingly reported, leading to several FDA notifications and warnings. The type of mesh used, reporting and classifications systems, and provider usage has varied widely over time. CONCLUSION: We present a historical review of transvaginal mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States from 2005 to 2016. There continues to be heated debate among practitioners about balancing the efficacy of mesh use to decrease recurrent prolapse and complications. Research into safety and efficacy, along with tighter FDA regulations, is ongoing.
Keywords:
Pelvic organ prolapse; Review; Transvaginal mesh
Authors: Miles Murphy; Adam Holzberg; Heather van Raalte; Neeraj Kohli; Howard B Goldman; Vincent Lucente Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Michel Cosson; G Willy Davila; Jan Deprest; Peter L Dwyer; Brigitte Fatton; Ervin Kocjancic; Joseph Lee; Chris Maher; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer; Ralph J Webb Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jeffrey L Clemons; Milena Weinstein; Marsha K Guess; Marianna Alperin; Pamela Moalli; William Thomas Gregory; Emily S Lukacz; Vivian W Sung; Bertha H Chen; Catherine S Bradley Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Dominique El-Khawand; Salim A Wehbe; Peter G O'Hare; Divya Arunachalam; Babak Vakili Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: V Bjelic-Radisic; T Aigmueller; O Preyer; G Ralph; I Geiss; G Müller; P Riss; P Klug; M Konrad; G Wagner; M Medl; W Umek; P Lozano; K Tamussino; A Tammaa Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Vivian W Sung; Rebecca G Rogers; Joseph I Schaffer; Ethan M Balk; Katrin Uhlig; Joseph Lau; Husam Abed; Thomas L Wheeler; Michelle Y Morrill; Jeffrey L Clemons; David D Rahn; James C Lukban; Lior Lowenstein; Kimberly Kenton; Stephen B Young Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Shataakshi Dahal; Mei Kuang; Anna Rietsch; R S Butler; Anand Ramamurthi; Margot S Damaser Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 4.219
Authors: Matej Keršič; Maruša Keršič; Tina Kunič; Simone Garzon; Antonio Simone Laganà; Matija Barbič; Adolf Lukanović; David Lukanović Journal: Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther Date: 2020-08-01