Abstract
Einstein once said, ‘In the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity’. However, in this current climate when the use of synthetic transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery is associated with increasing negative publicity, there is limited opportunity for progress in this field. In fact the authors consider what happened over the last few years a retrograde development. The blanket decision to suspend all mesh use in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in Scotland in 2014, including synthetic suburethral slings which have a proven success record reaching back about 20 years, is an obvious example. The recent removal from the market of transobturator meshes including the Perigee™ (American Medical Systems (AMS), Minnetonka, MN, USA) and Anterior Prolift™ (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) is another example of a retrograde development. While these were largely commercial decisions, it is inevitable that clinicians are now forced to revert back to procedures that have been shown to be less effective. In our opinion the discussion surrounding the use of transvaginal mesh has been dominated by emotion rather than science.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 105-107 |
Number of pages | 3 |
Journal | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology |
Volume | 57 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Keywords
- pelvic floor
- pelvic organ prolapse
- surgery