Long-term mesh-related complications from minimally invasive intraperitoneal onlay mesh for small to medium-sized ventral hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) placement for small to medium-sized hernias has garnered negative attention due to perceived long-term risk of mesh-related complications. However, sparse data exists supporting such claims after minimally invasive (MIS) IPOM repairs and most is hindered by the lack of long-term follow-up. We sought to report long-term outcomes and mesh-related complications of MIS IPOM ventral hernia repairs. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Adult patients who underwent MIS IPOM ventral hernia repair at our institution were identified in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database from October 2013 to October 2020. Outcomes included hernia recurrence and mesh-related complications or reoperations up to 6 years postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were identified. The majority (97.2%) of cases were elective, non-recurrent (74.5%), and CDC class I (99.4%). Mean hernia width was 4.16 ± 3.86 cm. Median follow-up was 3.6 (IQR 2.8-5) years. Surgeon-entered or patient-reported follow-up was available for 253 (77.8%) patients at 3 years or greater postoperatively. One patient experienced an early small bowel obstruction and was reoperated on within 30 days. Two-hundred forty-five radiographic examinations were available up to 6 years postoperatively. Twenty-seven patients had hernia recurrence on radiographic examination up to 6 years postoperatively. During long-term follow-up, two mesh-related complications required reoperations: mesh removed for chronic pain and mesh removal at the time of colon surgery for perforated cancer. Sixteen additional patients required reoperation within 6 years for the following reasons: hernia recurrence (n = 5), unrelated intraabdominal pathology (n = 9), obstructed port site hernia (n = 1), and adhesive bowel obstruction unrelated to the prosthesis (n = 1). The rate of reoperation due to intraperitoneal mesh complications was 0.62% (2/325) with up to 6 year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal mesh for repair of small to medium-sized hernias has an extremely low rate of long-term mesh-related complications. It remains a safe and durable option for hernia surgeons.

Pelvic pain after laparoscopic lateral suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: an unrecognized problem?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) represents an alternative mesh procedure to avoid the dissection at the promontory. However, mesh-related complications such as chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and bladder pain are emerging. The present study is aimed to present a video case report and describe a small case series of patients referred to our center for chronic pelvic pain after LLS. METHODS: A surgical video of the management of a 50-year-old woman with chronic abdominal and pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and recurrent urinary tract infection (UTIs) after uterus sparing LLS is provided. Moreover, we performed a retrospective chart review of similar cases in our institution. RESULTS: The featured procedure was completed without complications and was successful in obtaining symptom relief. Between 2018 and 2022 five patients underwent total or subtotal mesh removal for pain-related symptoms after LLS. At the median follow-up of 24 months, all patients were free from pain, but two (40%) required reoperation for prolapse recurrence CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that LLS involves a certain risk of chronic pelvic pain, which may be challenging to manage and require surgical treatment.

Immunochemical and urodynamic outcomes after polypropylene mesh explant from the pelvic wall of rats.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To analyze the immunochemical and urodynamic outcomes after partial versus complete excision of transvaginal polypropylene mesh (PPM) from pelvic walls of rats. METHODS: Forty-eight female Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were randomly distributed into seven groups: control, mesh total removal 60 days (M-T 60D), mesh total removal 180 days (M-T 180D), mesh partial removal 60 days (M-H 60D), mesh partial removal 180 days (M-H 180D), sham 60 days (Sham 60D), and sham 180 days (Sham 180D). In the mesh groups, PPM was inserted and partially (0.3 × 0.3 cm) or completely removed 30 days later. In the Sham group, the space between the vagina and bladder was dissected without placing or removing the synthetic mesh at day 1 and day 30 later. Urodynamic studies, immunochemical analysis, and Western blot were done at days 60 and 180. RESULTS: The M-T 60D voiding pressure was significantly decreased compared to the Sham 60D and M-H 60D. The voiding interval of M-T 60D was significantly shorter than that of M-H 60D. In the M-T 60D and M-T 180D groups, the leak point pressure was significantly less than in their corresponding sham groups. IL-1 and TNF-α were significantly more intense in M-T 60D compared to M-H 60D and Sham 60D. NGF was significantly greater in M-T 60D compared to Sham 60D. There were no significant differences in MMP-2 and CD-31s throughout the group. CONCLUSION: Total mesh excision incites a host inflammatory response and transitory lower urinary tract dysfunction. Despite the good outcomes after total excision, the invasiveness and surgical risk associated with repeated procedures should not be underestimateded.

Prospective ultrasonographic follow-up of transvaginal lightweight meshes: a 1-year multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of new lightweight meshes in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery may reduce complications related to mesh retraction (chronic pain, dyspareunia, and mesh exposure). The aim of this study was to investigate changes in the area and position of Uphold Lite™ mesh 6 weeks and 12 months after anterior and/or apical prolapse repair. METHODS: This observational prospective multicenter study included patients who had undergone transvaginal surgery for symptomatic POP-Q stage ≥ II anterior and/or apical compartment prolapse with placement of Uphold Lite mesh. The dimensions and position of the mesh were evaluated at 6 weeks and 12 months by ultrasonography. Correlations between ultrasonographic mesh characteristics and POP recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty evaluable women with an average age of 66.8 years were included. No statistically significant difference in mesh area was found between week 6 and month 12 postoperatively, either at rest (1746.92 vs. 1574.48 mm2; p = 0.15) or on Valsalva (1568.81 vs. 1542.98 mm2; p = 0.65). The ROC-AUC of the distance between the mesh and the bladder neck (M-BN) at 6 weeks for predicting cystocele recurrence at 12 months was 0.764 (95% CI 0.573-0.955) at rest and 0.724 (95% CI 0.533-0.916) on Valsalva. An M-BN distance > 12.5 mm could predict cystocele recurrence at month 12 with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 69%. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonographic measurements of the Uphold Lite™ mesh appear to remain stable between 6 weeks and 12 months postoperatively. M-BN distance correlates with cystocele recurrence. These results appear to confirm the value of ultrasound in mesh evaluation.

Chronic anemia due to transmural e-PTFE anti-adhesive barrier mesh migration in the small bowel after open incisional hernia repair: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Meshes are commonly employed in abdominal hernia repair to reduce recurrence rates. Prosthetic repair, however, increases the risk of mesh related complications, including migration into adjacent viscera and erosion which can occur as uncommon and can be difficult to be diagnose. PRESENTATION OF CASE: This is a case of transmural migration of composite mesh into the bowel, presenting as chronic abdominal pain and anemia 14 years after incisional hernia repair. DISCUSSION: Mesh implantation in hernia repair has increased the incidence of complications, such as seroma, hematoma and infection. Migration into adjacent viscera and erosion may present as complications related to the use of meshes. Their precise frequency after abdominal wall hernia repair is not well known and their late occurrence can make the diagnosis difficult. CONCLUSION: Transmural migration of composite mesh is an uncommon complication of incisional hernia repair. Its pathogenesis is still not completely clear but it has been reported many years after implant surgery. It should be considered in a typical presentation of patients with history of previous prosthetic ventral hernia repair.

Do patients prefer mesh or anterior colporrhaphy for primary correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a labelled discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated patients' preferences for anterior colporrhaphy or mesh surgery as surgical correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. DESIGN: Labelled discrete choice experiment. SETTING: Three Dutch teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage 2 or more, indicated for anterior colporrhaphy (n = 100). METHODS: Discrete choice experiments are an attribute-based survey method for measuring preferences. In this experiment, women were asked to choose between two treatment scenarios, mesh surgery or anterior colporrhaphy. These surgical treatments differed in four treatment attributes: (i) recurrence rate, (ii) exposure rate, (iii) infection rate, (iv) dyspareunia. Data were analysed using a multinomial logit model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's preferences for anterior colporrhaphy or mesh surgery for the repair of vaginal wall prolapse. RESULTS: All treatment attributes, i.e. recurrence, exposure, infection and dyspareunia, proved to be significant in the woman's decision to choose mesh surgery (P < 0.001), while only two attributes out of three, recurrence and infection, were significant for anterior colporrhaphy (P < 0.001). The relative importance data showed that with regards to the four statistically significant attributes for mesh, dyspareunia was the most important attribute, and of the two significant attributes for anterior colporrhaphy, the risk of infection. Based on the attributes and levels in our discrete choice experiment, anterior colporrhaphy was preferred in 74% as a primary correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse, followed by a preference for mesh in 26% of all choices. CONCLUSION: This study showed that next to the risk of recurrence, other aspects like risk of infection, dyspareunia and exposure play a role in the woman's preference for a surgical treatment. In addition, our results indicate that anterior colporrhaphy is preferred in the majority of the choices, followed by a preference for mesh surgery in a quarter of all choice sets. However, these results represent the average preference of a sample of women and cannot be taken as the preference of each individual. In the medical decision-making context, information from the current study should be personalised to fit patient's unique circumstances. For patients to construct their own, individual preferences, they should be well informed about the existence and magnitude of the potential benefits and risks related to either anterior colporrhaphy or mesh surgery.