Vered H Eisenberg1,2, Geertje Callewaert3,4, Nikhil Sindhwani3,4, Susanne Housmans3,4, Dominique van Schoubroeck3,4, Lior Lowenstein5, Jan Deprest3,4,6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, 52621, Ramat Gan, Israel. veredeis@bezeqint.net. 2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. veredeis@bezeqint.net. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Academic Department Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 6. Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Paramagnetic Fe particles can be added during synthetic mesh production to allow visibility on magnetic resonance imaging. Our aim was to evaluate whether transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) allows visualization, measurement, and characterization of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF mesh) containing Fe particles compared with regular polypropylene (PP) meshes used for sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Women up to 1.5 years after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy who were implanted with a PP or PVDF mesh underwent clinical examination and 2D, 3D, and 4D TPUS. Acquired volumes were analyzed offline for mesh position at rest and maximal Valsalva and for mesh dimensions and characteristics, with the operator blinded to group assignment. The two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were 17 women in the PP and 25 in the PVDF mesh group, without differences in baseline demographics. None had significant prolapse, recurrence, symptoms, or complications. On TPUS, mesh was visible in all patients both caudally (perineal) and cranially but was more echogenic in the PVDF mesh group. Mesh length from distal to proximal that was visible on TPUS was longer for PVDF mesh, for both anterior and posterior vaginal arms (all P < 0.05), and for mesh above the vaginal apex (P = 0.002). The inferior aspects of the mesh showed areas of double mesh layers, suggesting folding in 80% of women in both groups, without symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: PVDF mesh permits clearer visualization and is seen over a longer stretch on TPUS, with longer visible mesh arms. The latter can be due to differences in operative technique, presence of microparticles, implant textile structure, or patient characteristics.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Paramagnetic Fe particles can be added during synthetic mesh production to allow visibility on magnetic resonance imaging. Our aim was to evaluate whether transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) allows visualization, measurement, and characterization of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF mesh) containing Fe particles compared with regular polypropylene (PP) meshes used for sacrocolpopexy. METHODS:Women up to 1.5 years after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy who were implanted with a PP or PVDF mesh underwent clinical examination and 2D, 3D, and 4D TPUS. Acquired volumes were analyzed offline for mesh position at rest and maximal Valsalva and for mesh dimensions and characteristics, with the operator blinded to group assignment. The two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were 17 women in the PP and 25 in the PVDF mesh group, without differences in baseline demographics. None had significant prolapse, recurrence, symptoms, or complications. On TPUS, mesh was visible in all patients both caudally (perineal) and cranially but was more echogenic in the PVDF mesh group. Mesh length from distal to proximal that was visible on TPUS was longer for PVDF mesh, for both anterior and posterior vaginal arms (all P < 0.05), and for mesh above the vaginal apex (P = 0.002). The inferior aspects of the mesh showed areas of double mesh layers, suggesting folding in 80% of women in both groups, without symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:PVDF mesh permits clearer visualization and is seen over a longer stretch on TPUS, with longer visible mesh arms. The latter can be due to differences in operative technique, presence of microparticles, implant textile structure, or patient characteristics.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Masayuki Endo; Andrew Feola; Nikhil Sindhwani; Stefano Manodoro; Jarek Vlacil; Alexander Carl Engels; Filip Claus; Jan A Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Filip Claerhout; Dirk De Ridder; Jan Paul Roovers; Heidi Rommens; Federico Spelzini; Vanessa Vandenbroucke; Georges Coremans; Jan Deprest Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-12-17 Impact factor: 20.096