Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Abstract Objective To provide an update on transvaginal mesh procedures, newly available minimally invasive surgical techniques for pelvic floor repair Options The discussion is limited to minimally invasive transvaginal mesh procedures. Evidence PubMed and Medline were searched for articles published in English, using the key words “pelvic organ prolapse,” transvaginal mesh,” and “minimally invasive surgery.” Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/ controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis, and articles were incorporated in the guideline to May 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies. Values The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice were ranked according to the method described in that report (Table 1). Benefits, harms, and costs Counselling for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse should consider all benefits, harms, and costs of the surgical procedure, with particular emphasis on the use of mesh. Recommendations 1. Patients should be counselled that transvaginal mesh procedures are considered novel techniques for pelvic floor repair that demonstrate high rates of anatomical cure in uncontrolled short-term case series. (II-2B) 2. Patients should be informed of the range of success rates until stronger evidence of superiority is published. (II-2B) 3. Training specific to transvaginal mesh procedures should be undertaken before procedures are performed. (III-C) 4. Patients should undergo thorough preoperative ounselling regarding (a) the potential serious adverse sequelae of transvaginal mesh repairs, including mesh exposure, pain, and dyspareunia; and (b) the limited data available comparing transvaginal mesh systems with traditional vaginal prolapse repairs or with traditional use of graft material in the form of augmented colporrhaphy and sacral colpopexy. (III-C) 5. Until appropriate supportive data are available, new trocarless kits should be considered investigative. (III-C)