ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of prolapse meshes on vaginal smooth muscle structure (VaSM) and function, and to evaluate these outcomes in the context of the mechanical and textile properties of the mesh. DESIGN: Three months following the implantation of three polypropylene prolapse meshes with distinct textile and mechanical properties, mesh tissue explants were evaluated for smooth muscle contraction, innervation, receptor function, and innervation density. SETTING: Magee-Womens Research Institute at the University of Pittsburgh. POPULATION: Thirty-four parous rhesus macaques of similar age, parity, and pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) scores. METHODS: Macaques were implanted with mesh via sacrocolpopexy. The impact of Gynemesh(™) PS (Ethicon; n = 7), Restorelle(®) (Coloplast; n = 7), UltraPro(™) parallel and UltraPro(™) perpendicular (Ethicon; n = 6 and 7, respectively) were compared with sham-operated controls (n = 7). Outcomes were analysed by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U-tests and multiple regression analysis (P < 0.05). MEAN OUTCOME MEASURES: Vaginal tissue explants were evaluated for the maximum contractile force generated following muscle, nerve, and receptor stimulation, and for peripheral nerve density. RESULTS: Muscle myofibre, nerve, and receptor-mediated contractions were negatively affected by mesh only in the grafted region (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P = 0.008, respectively), whereas cholinergic and adrenergic nerve densities were affected in the grafted (P = 0.090 and P = 0.008, respectively) and non-grafted (P = 0.009 and P = 0.005, respectively) regions. The impact varied by mesh property, as mesh stiffness was a significant predictor of the negative affect on muscle function and nerve density (P < 0.001 and P = 0.013, respectively), whereas mesh and weight was a predictor of receptor function (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mesh has an overall negative impact on VaSM, and the effects are a function of mesh properties, most notably, mesh stiffness. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prolapse mesh affects vaginal smooth muscle.
Subject(s)
Muscle, Smooth/pathology , Pelvic Organ Prolapse/surgery , Polypropylenes/adverse effects , Surgical Mesh/adverse effects , Vagina/pathology , Adrenergic Neurons/pathology , Adrenergic Neurons/physiology , Animals , Biomechanical Phenomena , Biopsy/methods , Cholinergic Neurons/pathology , Cholinergic Neurons/physiology , Equipment Design , Female , Macaca mulatta , Muscarinic Agonists/pharmacology , Muscle Contraction/physiology , Muscle Fibers, Skeletal/pathology , Muscle Fibers, Skeletal/physiology , Muscle, Smooth/innervation , Muscle, Smooth/physiopathology , Pelvic Organ Prolapse/pathology , Pelvic Organ Prolapse/physiopathology , Peripheral Nerves/pathology , Peripheral Nerves/physiopathology , Polypropylenes/administration & dosage , Receptors, Muscarinic/drug effects , Receptors, Muscarinic/physiology , Vagina/innervation , Vagina/physiopathologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To define the impact of prolapse mesh on the biomechanical properties of the vagina by comparing the prototype Gynemesh PS (Ethicon) to two new-generation lower stiffness meshes, SmartMesh (Coloplast) and UltraPro (Ethicon). DESIGN: A study employing a nonhuman primate model. SETTING: University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. POPULATION: Forty-five parous rhesus macaques. METHODS: Meshes were implanted via sacrocolpopexy after hysterectomy and compared with sham. Because its stiffness is highly directional, UltraPro was implanted in two directions: UltraPro Perpendicular (less stiff) and UltraPro Parallel (more stiff), with the indicated direction referring to the position of the blue orientation lines relative to the longitudinal axis of the vagina. The mesh-vaginal complex (MVC) was excised in toto after 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Active mechanical properties were quantified as the contractile force generated in the presence of 120 mmol/l KCl. Passive mechanical properties (a tissue's ability to resist an applied force) were measured using a multiaxial protocol. RESULTS: Vaginal contractility decreased by 80% following implantation with the Gynemesh PS (P = 0.001), 48% after SmartMesh (P = 0.001), 68% after UltraPro Parallel (P = 0.001) and was highly variable after UltraPro Perpendicular (P = 0.16). The tissue contribution to the passive mechanical behaviour of the MVC was drastically reduced for Gynemesh PS (P = 0.003), but not for SmartMesh (P = 0.9) or UltraPro independent of the direction of implantation (P = 0.68 and P = 0.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Deterioration of the mechanical properties of the vagina was highest following implantation with the stiffest mesh, Gynemesh PS. Such a decrease associated with implantation of a device of increased stiffness is consistent with findings from other systems employing prostheses for support.
