Stephanie Deblaere1,2, Jan Hauspy3, Karen Hansen3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium. stephanie.deblaere@uzgent.be. 2. Women's Clinic, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. stephanie.deblaere@uzgent.be. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Sacrocolpopexy is considered mainstay treatment for apical or vaginal vault prolapse and is currently most often performed via a minimally invasive approach. Although mesh-related complications after this procedure are uncommon, mesh exposure can have an important impact on the patient's quality of life. Our objective is to perform a literature review on this complication post laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Web of Science and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2021. We retrieved 272 articles of which 83 ultimately were withheld. RESULTS: Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) implies a low risk of mesh exposure, which is currently estimated at 3.5%. Literature however is marked by substantial methodological heterogeneity. Controversy remains in the debate over prevention of mesh exposure after MISC. Performing a concomitant total hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk compared to subtotal hysterectomy or hysteropexy. Treatment of mesh exposure is challenging as guidelines are lacking. Although supported by few prospective data, patients with asymptomatic mesh exposure are managed conservatively. Surgical intervention, preferentially performed by an experienced pelvic surgeon, is indicated in symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh exposure is often undiagnosed and remains untreated. There is a gap in evidence exploring risk factors for mesh-related complications and efficient measures for reducing them. Choosing the best treatment option is still difficult. Management should be individualized and optimized at the time of diagnosis. Lack of acknowledgement and experience can result in increased morbidity.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Sacrocolpopexy is considered mainstay treatment for apical or vaginal vault prolapse and is currently most often performed via a minimally invasive approach. Although mesh-related complications after this procedure are uncommon, mesh exposure can have an important impact on the patient's quality of life. Our objective is to perform a literature review on this complication post laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: Web of Science and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2021. We retrieved 272 articles of which 83 ultimately were withheld. RESULTS: Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) implies a low risk of mesh exposure, which is currently estimated at 3.5%. Literature however is marked by substantial methodological heterogeneity. Controversy remains in the debate over prevention of mesh exposure after MISC. Performing a concomitant total hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk compared to subtotal hysterectomy or hysteropexy. Treatment of mesh exposure is challenging as guidelines are lacking. Although supported by few prospective data, patients with asymptomatic mesh exposure are managed conservatively. Surgical intervention, preferentially performed by an experienced pelvic surgeon, is indicated in symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mesh exposure is often undiagnosed and remains untreated. There is a gap in evidence exploring risk factors for mesh-related complications and efficient measures for reducing them. Choosing the best treatment option is still difficult. Management should be individualized and optimized at the time of diagnosis. Lack of acknowledgement and experience can result in increased morbidity.
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: Catherine A Matthews; Elizabeth J Geller; Barbara R Henley; Kimberly Kenton; Erinn M Myers; Alexis A Dieter; Brent Parnell; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Margaret G Mueller; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Bich Ngoc Bui; Viviane Dietz; Rui Wang; Aafke P A van Montfoort; Ben Willem J Mol; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten; Egbert Lenters; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anique M J van Oudheusden; Josephine Eissing; Ivon M Terink; Maarten D H Vink; Sander M J van Kuijk; Marlies Y Bongers; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 1.932