Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional outcomes of synthetic tape and mesh revision surgeries: a monocentric experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Synthetic tapes and meshes used for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can lead to complications that require additional surgical procedures. The objective of this study was to report the functional outcomes following tape/mesh removal procedures.

Methods

This retrospective study included all consecutive women who underwent a tape/mesh surgical revision in a single tertiary referral center from January 2008 to September 2016. Descriptive statistics were performed to assess outcomes.

Results

Overall 140 women, with a mean age of 60.5 (range 35-91) years, had a tape/mesh surgical revision. Patients underwent the following surgeries: tape removal (n = 95/140, 67.9%), tape division (n = 23/140, 16.4%), mesh removal (n = 18/140, 12.9%) and concomitant tape and mesh removal (n = 4/140, 2.9%). Tape removals were mainly performed for voiding symptoms (n = 34/95, 35.8%) and vaginal erosion/extrusion (n = 16/95, 16.8%). Most mesh removals were performed for vaginal erosion/extrusion (n = 9/18, 50.0%). Mean interval between tape/mesh insertion and its surgical revision was 52.1 months (range 5.0 days-16.0 years). Mean follow-up time was 20.4 months (range 6.0 days–7.8 years). Voiding and storage symptoms resolved completely in 37/59 (62.7%) patients and in 14/37 (37.8%) patients, respectively; 42/81 (51.9%) patients with postoperative SUI recurrence or persistence underwent an additional surgical procedure. Among the 18 patients who had a mesh removal, only 1 (5.6%) had POP recurrence.

Conclusion

Although most symptoms resolved after tape and mesh surgical revisions, patients must be informed that symptoms may persist. Recurrent or persistent SUI or POP may require a subsequent surgical procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

PVR:

Post-void residual

SUI:

Stress urinary incontinence

UTI:

Urinary tract infections

References

  1. Lasserre A, Pelat C, Guéroult V, Hanslik T, Chartier-Kastler E, Blanchon T, et al. Urinary incontinence in French women: prevalence, risk factors, and impact on quality of life. Eur Urol. 2009;56(1):177–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkhard FC, Lucas MG, Bosch JLHR, Cruz F, Lemack GE, Nambiar AK, et al. EAU guidelines on urinary incontinence in adults. European Association of Urology. 2016.

  3. Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and possible risk factors in a general population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(2):184.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(6):497–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elterman DS, Chughtai BI, Vertosick E, Maschino A, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS. Changes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the last decade among United States urologists. J Urol. 2014;191(4):1022–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seklehner S, Laudano MA, Xie D, Chughtai B, Lee RK. A meta-analysis of the performance of retropubic mid urethral slings versus transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol. 2015;193(3):909–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moon JW, Chae HD. Vaginal approaches using synthetic mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Ann Coloproctology. 2016;32(1):7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee D, Zimmern PE. Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(4):284–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chapple CR, Raz S, Brubaker L, Zimmern PE. Mesh sling in an era of uncertainty: lessons learned and the way forward. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):525–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee D, Dillon B, Lemack G, Gomelsky A, Zimmern P. Transvaginal mesh kits--how “serious” are the complications and are they reversible? Urology. 81(1):43–8.

  11. Ou R, Xie X-J, Zimmern PE. Prolapse follow-up at 5 years or more: myth or reality? Urology. 2011;78(2):295–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Danford JM, Osborn DJ, Reynolds WS, Biller DH, Dmochowski RR. Postoperative pain outcomes after transvaginal mesh revision. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):65–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Blaivas JG, Purohit RS, Weinberger JM, Tsui JF, Chouhan J, Sidhu R, et al. Salvage surgery after failed treatment of synthetic mesh sling complications. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1281–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse [Internet]. 2011. [cited 2017 May 5]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf

  16. Food and Drug Administration. Obstetrical and gynecological devices; reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2017 Feb 11] p. 353–61. Report No.: 2015–33165. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/05/2015-33165/obstetrical-and-gynecological-devices-reclassification-of-surgical-mesh-for-transvaginal-pelvic

  17. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016.

  18. Hammett J, Peters A, Trowbridge E, Hullfish K. Short-term surgical outcomes and characteristics of patients with mesh complications from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):465–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Skala C, Renezeder K, Albrich S, Puhl A, Laterza RM, Naumann G, et al. The IUGA/ICS classification of complications of prosthesis and graft insertion: a comparative experience in incontinence and prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1429–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hou JC, Alhalabi F, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Outcome of transvaginal mesh and tape removed for pain only. J Urol. 2014;192(3):856–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rigaud J, Delavierre D, Sibert L, Labat J-J. Management of chronic pelvic and perineal pain after suburethral tape placement for urinary incontinence. Prog Urol. 2010;20(12):1166–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Duckett JRA, Jain S. Groin pain after a tension-free vaginal tape or similar suburethral sling: management strategies. BJU Int. 2005;95(1):95–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Crosby EC, Abernethy M, Berger MB, DeLancey JO, Fenner DE, Morgan DM. Symptom resolution after operative management of complications from transvaginal mesh. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):134–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Singla N, Aggarwal H, Foster J, Alhalabi F, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Management of urinary incontinence following sub-urethral sling removal. J Urol. 2017.

  25. Aref-Adib M, Lamb BW, Lee HB, Akinnawo E, Raza MMA, Hughes A, et al. Stem cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review in human subjects. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(6):1213–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pitié-Salpêtrière Academic Hospital, Department of Urology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Pierre et Marie Curie Medical School, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Salima Ismail, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Christine Reus, Jérémy Cohen, Thomas Seisen & Véronique Phé

  2. Medical School Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Jérémy Cohen, Thomas Seisen & Véronique Phé

Authors
  1. Salima Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Reus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jérémy Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Seisen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Véronique Phé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salima Ismail.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

S. Ismail: The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

E. Chartier-Kastler is a consultant/speaker/investigator for Axonics, Medtronic, Allergan, Pfizer, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Astellas, Coloplast, Promedon and Uromedica.

C. Reus: The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

J. Cohen: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

T. Seisen: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

V. Phé is a consultant for Astellas, Boston Scientific and Pierre Fabre. She is also an investigator for Ipsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ismail, S., Chartier-Kastler, E., Reus, C. et al. Functional outcomes of synthetic tape and mesh revision surgeries: a monocentric experience. Int Urogynecol J 30, 805–813 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3727-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3727-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation