Mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery: Out of permissible range?

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of postoperative complications after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery, and whether modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (without transobturator arms or posterior mesh) has less prevalence of mesh exposure compared with conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery. METHODS: Medical charts were retrospectively examined for 2648 patients who underwent transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in a general hospital (2006-2017). Conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Prolift-type, n = 2258) was used, with a shift from 2015 to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Uphold-type, n = 330). Patients were instructed to have >2 years of follow up and to report if they had problems regarding the operation. RESULTS: The prevalence of mesh exposure was 34 out of 2648 (1.28%); 18 vagina (0.68%), 10 bladder (0.38%), two ureter (0.08%) and four rectum (0.15%). The modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group had only one case with vaginal exposure. Vaginal exposure was managed transvaginally or followed by observation. Rectal exposure was managed transvaginally without colostomy. Bladder exposure was managed by transurethral resection with saline. Open ureterocystostomy was carried out to treat ureteral exposure. In the conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group, three cases of ureteral stenosis and one case with vaginal evisceration of the small intestine were managed transvaginally. The prevalence of postoperative chronic pain was 13 out of 2648 (0.49%; with one patient in the modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group). The patients underwent pharmacotherapy, and one patient underwent additional surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The reoperation rate as a result of complications after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery seems to be low. The reoperation rate as a result of prolapse recurrence is also low. A shift from conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery might contribute to a further decrease in the risk of complications.

Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons' specialty and experience.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons' specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery. METHODS: We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery meeting in 2010. The surgeons were asked to state their specialty, practice patterns, transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques and the number of transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures carried out as an operator including the complications that occurred. RESULTS: A total of 118 surgeons (59% of the attendees) responded to the questionnaire. The mean age was 44.0 ± 9.1 years, 54 (46%) were gynecologists and 64 (54%) were urologists. All urologists and 78% of gynecologists carried out anti-incontinence surgery (midurethral sling), whereas more gynecologists (93%) carried out native tissue repair than urologists (73%). Most of both specialties (each 98%) avoided prophylactic anti-incontinence surgery during prolapse surgery. Concomitant hysterectomy during transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery was generally avoided. Surgeons reached a consensus regarding the critical transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques: hydrodissection (98%) and the full-thickness dissection (the "Lychee layer"; 69%). A total of 11 935 Prolift-type transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures were carried out and the following complications were reported: bladder injury (1.6%), rectal injury (0.3%), ureteral injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (0.2%), vaginal exposure (2.8%) and recurrence requiring reoperation (1.1%). Although complications did not differ between specialty, bladder injury, transfusion and vaginal exposure were less prevalent with experienced surgeons (≥50 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery cases). CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 000 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery had been carried out in Japan with a relatively low complication rate until 2010. This survey shows that surgeons' experience could lead to a decrease in the amount of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery complications.

Transvaginal repair of a rectovaginal fistula caused by transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.

Introduction: Transvaginal mesh surgery can cause mesh complications including rare rectovaginal fistula. We report a case of a rectovaginal fistula treated transvaginally without colostomy. Case presentation: A 57-year-old female was referred to us due to post-hysterectomy prolapse and had transvaginal mesh surgery. She underwent transvaginal hysterectomy because of uterine prolapse at age 33 and had taken steroids to treat pemphigus. Two years later, she developed vaginal bleeding and discharge. Transvaginal mesh removal was planned to treat vaginal mesh exposure, but immediately before the operation digital rectal examination revealed rectovaginal fistula. Mesh removal and fistula closure were performed transvaginally without colostomy. Three years of follow-up showed no recurrence of mesh exposure, fistula, or prolapse. Conclusion: Rectovaginal fistula following mesh surgery may be treated transvaginally without colostomy if infection is minimal. To evaluate mesh exposure on the posterior vaginal wall, rectal examination should be done along with vaginal examination.