Transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is more controversial than ever. The largest randomized trial yet suggests transvaginal mesh or grafts are of no benefit in primary POP repair. Furthermore, a population study looks back at complication rates from pelvic floor mesh surgery over the past two decades.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Wu, J. M., Matthews, C. A., Conover, M. M., Pate, V. & Jonsson Funk, M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet. Gynecol. 123, 1201–1206 (2014).
Nager, C., Tulikangas, P., Miller, D., Rovner, E. & Goldman, H. Position statement on mesh midurethral slings for stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 20, 123–125 (2014).
Siddiqui, N. Y. et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 125, 44–55 (2015).
Costantini, E. et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 205, 60–65 (2016).
Maher, C. et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10, CD012376 (2016).
Schimpf, M. O. et al. Graft and mesh use in transvaginal prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet. Gynecol. 128, 81–91 (2016).
Maher, C. et al. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11, CD004014 (2016).
Glazener, C. M. et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet 389, 381–392 (2017).
Morling, J. R. et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 389, 629–640 (2017).
Murphy, M. et al. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse”. Int. Urogynecol. J. 23, 5–9 (2012).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sajadi, K. Vaginal mesh debate boosted by two large Scottish studies. Nat Rev Urol 14, 201–202 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.31
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2017.31
