PubMed2006
Since 1996, prosthetic meshes have become increasingly popular for transvaginal surgical cure of genital prolapse. In light of the growing number of proposed techniques and materials we reviewed the experience of the pioneers in order to provide surgeons with the most objective information available. We reviewed the literature indexed in Meline/PubMed and Current Contents retaining all work concerning resorbable and non-resorbable meshes. For the larger class of non-resorbable meshes we also reviewed articles by category of material, each type of mesh being carefully defined: different compositions of polypropylene, polyester, composite meshes and also insertion kits. Resorbable meshes were evaluated in two randomized studies which did not demonstrate better results than with simple folding known to have a high rate of recurrence. For polypropylene meshes, Marlex was studied in six trials which demonstrated a high rate of cure at one year but also a high rate of erosion which reached 25%. Use of Atrium was mentioned in three studies with a 6 to 12% recurrence rate and an erosion rate nearly reaching 20%. The majority of studies used Prolene and Gynemesh. Seventeen authors reported their experience, generally reviewing retrospective series, with recurrence rates of less than 10% for follow-up periods rarely greater than two years. A large variety of forms and sizes have been used, hindering comparisons. The rate of erosion was also quite variable, as high as 45%, demonstrating the need for a precise definition of erosion. Only recently have authors shown interest in the impact of prosthetic meshes on quality of life and sexual activity. An improvement is generally noted for defecation but the rate of dyspareunia has reached as high as 60%. Here again grades of prosthetic retraction should be better defined. Proposed to improve these phenomena, soft Prolene recently used by several authors does not appear to fulfil expectations. Since 2005, several precut polypropylene meshes have been proposed with an insertion kit. The Prolift kit has been followed prospectively in 100 patients undergoing regular surveillance. Surgipro has been used sporadically in small series but follow-up is still too short for proper assessment. Polyester meshes (Mersilene and Paritex) have been presented by three authors who have found them useful but reports have been vague concerning results and complications. Polytetrafluoroethylene has not been evaluated for transvaginal surgery, probably because of the poor tolerance of suburetral bands. For composite meshes, Vypro has been used by four authors who noted about 10% erosion but with a short follow-up insufficient to draw conclusions about the functional and anatomic outcome. Surfaced meshes, advocated for transvaginal treatments, have been studied in only two reports. Plevitex is a polypropylene mesh coated with collagen; another polyester composite with polyglactin 910. The rate of dyspareunia varied from 14 to 24%. Other composites with antiadherents or antiseptics are also proposed for transvaginal insertion but have not been studied. This work demonstrated the lack of sufficient evidence from prospective randomized trials and the lack of standardized techniques to draw any definite conclusions. While evidence is being accumulated on the lower rate of recurrence for anterior compartment prolapse, the lack of data on the rate of complications and patient quality of life is unacceptable for this functional surgery. We still have reservations about widespread use of synthetic meshes. A special chapter is detailed in appendix on post-operative complications. These new specific complications call to a new semiology, with a classification in 4 types and under-types, proposed by authors. Type 1: defects of healing. Type 2: the infection of the graft. Type 3: the shrinkage of the mesh. Type 4: erosions. Authors detail the symptoms of these 4 types as well as the prevention and the treatment of these complications.