Vaginal mesh - the controversy.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a condition that can cause significant symptoms that affect a woman's quality of life. It is the result of defects in the supporting structures of the vagina and, depending on the location and size, can alter the functions of the organs contained within the female pelvis. Approximately 11% of women will undergo surgical intervention for their prolapse or for incontinence in their lifetime. Unfortunately, one third of these will require reoperation for failed procedures. Pelvic floor surgeons have sought to improve these outcomes. Based largely on the success of midurethral slings (MUS), transvaginal mesh has been implanted, and commercial kits developed with the intent of improving these outcomes. In 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health Notification in response to possible increased adverse events associated with the use of mesh compared to traditional repairs. The 2011 update required that further study be conducted for the use of transvaginal mesh. In this article, we wish to discuss the background of mesh use and the evolution of the public health warnings, and focus on future prospects.

Colpocleisis for advanced pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize our experience with colpocleisis in a urologic setting because it has not been documented broadly in the urologic literature. METHODS: Retrospective review of demographics, urodynamics, presenting symptoms, complications, and outcomes for patients undergoing colpocleisis from 2001-2010 was performed. A questionnaire including the short forms of the Urinary Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6), and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement was sent to consenting patients. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were identified. Examinations were all POP-Q stage 3 or greater or Baden Walker grade 3 or higher; 73.6% underwent total colpocleisis and 26.4% Le Fort; 60.4% underwent concomitant sling. Complications included 1 patient requiring transfusion, 1 with pulmonary embolus, 1 needing clot evacuation, and 1 requiring intraoperative cystotomy repair. There was no postoperative de novo urgency, no recurrence of prolapse, and no chronic urinary retention. In patients not undergoing urethral sling, stress urinary incontinence persisted in 4 patients and occurred de novo in 1. Mean follow-up was 9.3 months. Twenty-two surveys were returned: 90.9% described their condition as much or very much better on Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The average POPDI-6 score was 9.1. Frequency and urgency were the most common complaints leading to bother on the UDI-6 (33.3%). Most of these responders had a preoperative urge component. CONCLUSION: In a selected patient population, colpocleisis is safe and efficacious. Persistent lower urinary tract symptoms comprise the highest frequency of complaints after colpocleisis, and this must be included in patient counseling. In an aging patient population with expected increase in demand for pelvic floor reconstruction, colpocleisis is a useful approach for the urologist.

To sling or not to sling at the time of anterior vaginal compartment repair.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prevention of postoperative stress urinary incontinence at the time of prolapse repair is controversial. There has been a shift away from colposuspension procedures to midurethral slings. As with any surgery, midurethral slings are associated with risks, which must be balanced against the benefits of preventing postoperative stress urinary incontinence. The aim of this overview is to review the controversy, discuss potential complications of midurethral slings, discuss the efficacy of concomitant sling placement, and suggest a method of systematically approaching patients with high-grade anterior compartment prolapse. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have recently advocated for the routine use of anti-incontinence procedures at the time of prolapse surgery; however, applying these data to midurethral slings is problematic. Ultimately, the issue of treatment of the urethra at the time of prolapse repair should be discussed with the patient with treatment rendered depending on the risk the patient is willing to bear. SUMMARY: The aim of this study is to discuss the risks and benefits of applying a midurethral sling in patients with high-grade anterior compartment prolapse. In these patients, placement of a suburethral sling may be approached systematically, taking into account the patients' variables and their own goals of therapy.