Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse Repair and the Rise and Fall of Transvaginal Mesh. Did We Come Full Circle? A Historical Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To present a brief historical review of treatment options for pelvic organ prolapse with a focus on anterior vaginal wall defects and highlight changing practice patterns in the era of synthetic mesh controversy. METHODS: A MEDLINE and PubMed search was performed using the keywords pelvic organ prolapse, anterior colporrhaphy, and cystocele followed by a manual search of bibliographies. RESULTS: Ancient treatments included Hippocratic succession, local astringent, and use of pomegranates as crude pessaries. More sophisticated surgical techniques evolved in the 19th century with further refinement in the early 20th century. Numerous native tissue apposition techniques were popularized by Kelly, Kennedy, Burch, and Raz. Due to poor durability, surgeons sought alternate approaches including biologic and synthetic grafts. Synthetic transvaginal mesh (TVM) initially included use of Tantalum and Marlex to repair anterior wall defects. Both were eventually abandoned due to complications. TVM was re-designed, re-marketed, and re-introduced. Type 1 polypropylene monofilament TVM use became ubiquitous in female pelvic surgery peaking between 2004 and 2008. Initial promising outcomes were soon eclipsed by a surge of adverse events leading to multiple FDA warnings, reclassification to Class III, high-risk medical device, and ultimately a complete recall in 2019. CONCLUSION: The bidirectional pendulum swing on use of synthetic TVM has been occurring since its introduction 50 years ago. In the current era of mesh controversy, more practitioners are now revisiting previously described native tissue and biologic graft techniques. It appears that history has repeated itself.

Barriers to accessing urethroplasty.

Urethroplasty is an effective treatment for men with anterior urethral strictures, but is utilized less frequently than ineffective treatments such as internal urethrotomy. We sought to identify provider-level barriers to urethroplasty. An anonymous online survey was emailed to all Mid-Atlantic American Urological Association members. Six scenarios in which urethroplasty was the most appropriate treatment were presented. Primary outcome was recommendation for urethroplasty in ≥ three clinical scenarios. Other factors measured include practice zip code, urethroplasty training, and proximity to a urethroplasty surgeon. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with increased likelihood of urethroplasty recommendation. Of 670 members emailed, 109 (16%) completed the survey. Final analysis included 88 respondents. Mean years in practice was 17.2. Most respondents received formal training in urethroplasty: 43 (49%) in residency, 5 (6%) in fellowship, and 10 (11%) in both; 48 respondents (55%) had a urethroplasty surgeon in their practice, whereas 18 (20%) had a urethroplasty surgeon within 45 minutes of his or her primary practice location. The only covariate that was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending urethroplasty in ≥ three scenarios was formal urethroplasty training. Most members (68%) reported no barriers to referring patients for urethroplasty; the most common barriers cited were long distance to urethroplasty surgeon (n 5 13, 15%) and concern about complications (n 5 8, 9%). Urethroplasty continues to be underutilized in men with anterior urethral strictures, potentially due to lack of knowledge dissemination and access to a urethroplasty surgeon. Appropriate urethroplasty utilization may increase with greater exposure to urethroplasty in training.