Mesh erosion in abdominal sacral colpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy

Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse

“…[25,26,29,32,46] It is important to determine whether safety and efficacy of mesh differ in women having primary versus recurrent prolapse repairs. However, of the 54 included studies, only two case series [35,61] reported exclusively on women having primary repairs. Another four studies[18,34,49,51] reported the case mix of primary and secondary operations but did not report outcome data separately for the two groups.…”

Natural orifice vaginal sacrocolpopexy (NOVaS): a cadaver feasibility study

“…However, they did find a trend for higher erosion rates when the mesh was placed laparoscopically as opposed to vaginally, suggesting that transvaginal placement does not seem to be a critical factor leading to erosion. In a retrospective review of 313 patients, Wu et al (8) found no difference in erosion rates between those with concomitant vaginal hysterectomy to those with a previous hysterectomy (6.9% vs. 4.7%, p=.42). Similarly, Nosti and colleagues (9) published a retrospective case control study designed to evaluate the effect of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy on the risk of mesh erosion.…”

Partial colpocleisis for the treatment of sacrocolpopexy mesh erosions

“…Our series had insufficient power to show a difference between Mersilene and Prolene, but soft weave, monofilament meshes with pores >75 μ have theoretical advantages for tissue integration. The association of concurrent hysterectomy with the risk of mesh erosion continues to be a source of debate [16][17][18]. The most recent retrospective cohort study involving the largest number of patients, 212 posthysterectomy patients and 101 concomitant hysterectomy patients, found no difference in erosion rates (4.7 vs 6.9%, p=0.42).…”