• Christopher J Chermansky and J Christian Winters.
• Department of Urology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, USA. ccherm@lsuhsc.edu
• Curr Opin Urol. 2012 Jul 1; 22 (4): 287-91.

Purpose Of ReviewMesh used for slings and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair has resulted in increased efficacy. Yet, the benefits of a more durable repair must be weighed against such risks as vaginal mesh extrusion and erosion and increased dyspareunia, and pelvic pain. We review the current literature on complications seen with the use of vaginal mesh for both stress urinary incontinence and POP.Recent FindingsThe use of mesh in midurethral slings results in similar efficacy but less morbidity compared with nonmesh sling techniques. The use of mesh in abdominal sacrocolpopexy may result in lower rates of mesh complications compared with transvaginal mesh prolapse repairs. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued an updated safety communication stating that serious complications associated with transvaginal mesh for POP repair are not rare. Yet, certain patients do benefit from the use of transvaginal mesh for POP repair.SummaryBetter-controlled data are needed to answer questions regarding outcomes, complications, and quality of life after transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures. The surgeon and the patient must have a proper informed consent discussion about the risks, benefits, alternatives, and indications for the use of mesh.

27 keywords...

hide…