Current opinion in urology
-
Pelvic reconstructive surgeons in the fields of urology, gynecology and urogynecology have continually adapted new techniques in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair in order to improve both anatomic and subjective outcomes. In the last 5 years, robotic surgery has gained a strong foothold in urologic oncology, gynecologic oncology, cardiothoracic surgery and now in female pelvic medicine. Robotic surgery has made its way into the armamentarium of POP treatment and has allowed pelvic surgeons to adapt the 'gold standard' technique of abdominal sacrocolpopexy to a minimally invasive approach with improved intraoperative morbidity and decreased convalescence. This review article aims to discuss the techniques of robotic prolapse repair as well as morbidity, cost and clinical outcomes. ⋯ Robotic-assisted pelvic floor surgery has become an important component of the pelvic surgeon's armamentarium in the treatment of symptomatic POP. Those pelvic surgeons without significant expertise in laparoscopy required for sacral dissection and intracorporeal suturing can readily learn the necessary techniques required for robotic surgery.
-
This review will focus on the strengths of transvaginal mesh-augmented repairs over traditional native tissue repairs with an emphasis on the more recent literature. ⋯ Higher complication rates involving mesh exposures have been documented in the past leading to the recent controversy; however, current mesh studies with longer term follow-up show lower and acceptable exposures with improved objective and subjective outcomes.
-
Mesh 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. ⋯ Better-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.
-
To provide an overview regarding the results of transvaginal mesh kits to determine if the known risks outweigh their benefits. ⋯ Transvaginal synthetic mesh kits have minimal to no improved clinical success over nonmesh repairs. Compounding this, mesh kits are clearly associated with multiple relatively common and unique complications without any significant proven benefit for symptomatic relief of pelvic organ prolapse and improvement of quality of life. Continued routine use will needlessly and potentially harm patients permanently without providing any significant benefit.