Ricardo Palmerola1, Nirit Rosenblum2. 1. Departments of Urology and Obstetrics & Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, 222 East 41st Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, USA. ricardopalmerola@gmail.com. 2. Departments of Urology and Obstetrics & Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, 222 East 41st Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Due to recent concerns over the use of synthetic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, there has been a renewed interest in the utilization of non-synthetic repairs for pelvic organ prolapse. The purpose of this review is to review the current literature regarding pelvic organ prolapse repairs performed without the utilization of synthetic mesh. RECENT FINDINGS: Native tissue repairs provide a durable surgical option for pelvic organ prolapse. Based on recent findings of recently performed randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up, transvaginal native tissue repair continues to play a role in the management of pelvic organ prolapse without the added risk associated with synthetic mesh. In 2019, the FDA called for manufacturers of synthetic mesh for transvaginal mesh to stop selling and distributing their products in the USA. Native tissue and non-synthetic pelvic organ prolapse repairs provide an efficacious alternative without the added risk inherent to the utilization of transvaginal mesh. A recent, multicenter, randomized clinical trial demonstrated no clear advantage to the utilization of synthetic mesh. Furthermore, transvaginal native tissue repairs have demonstrated good long-term efficacy, particularly when anatomic success is not the sole metric used to define surgical success.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Due to recent concerns over the use of synthetic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, there has been a renewed interest in the utilization of non-synthetic repairs for pelvic organ prolapse. The purpose of this review is to review the current literature regarding pelvic organ prolapse repairs performed without the utilization of synthetic mesh. RECENT FINDINGS: Native tissue repairs provide a durable surgical option for pelvic organ prolapse. Based on recent findings of recently performed randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up, transvaginal native tissue repair continues to play a role in the management of pelvic organ prolapse without the added risk associated with synthetic mesh. In 2019, the FDA called for manufacturers of synthetic mesh for transvaginal mesh to stop selling and distributing their products in the USA. Native tissue and non-synthetic pelvic organ prolapse repairs provide an efficacious alternative without the added risk inherent to the utilization of transvaginal mesh. A recent, multicenter, randomized clinical trial demonstrated no clear advantage to the utilization of synthetic mesh. Furthermore, transvaginal native tissue repairs have demonstrated good long-term efficacy, particularly when anatomic success is not the sole metric used to define surgical success.
Authors: Mary Anna Denman; W Thomas Gregory; Sarah H Boyles; Virginia Smith; S Renee Edwards; Amanda L Clark Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Cecile A Unger; Matthew D Barber; Mark D Walters; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Beri Ridgeway; J Eric Jelovsek Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Daniel Altman; Tapio Väyrynen; Marie Ellström Engh; Susanne Axelsen; Christian Falconer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Cathryn Ma Glazener; Suzanne Breeman; Andrew Elders; Christine Hemming; Kevin G Cooper; Robert M Freeman; Anthony Rb Smith; Fiona Reid; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Graeme MacLennan; John Norrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Linda Cardozo; Elke Hessdörfer; Rodolfo Milani; Pedro Arañó; Luc Dewilde; Mark Slack; Ted Drogendijk; Mark Wright; John Bolodeoku Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Heather M Barbier; Margo Z Smith; Chidimma U Eto; Jeffrey A Welgoss; Walter Von Pechmann; Nicolette Horbach; Daniel D Gruber Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Andrea Braga; Maurizio Serati; Stefano Salvatore; Marco Torella; Roberto Pasqualetti; Andrea Papadia; Giorgio Caccia Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 2.894