The mesh debate : transvaginal anterior anchored mesh should not be abandoned

Vivien Wong, Ka Lai Shek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-107
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume57
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • pelvic floor
  • pelvic organ prolapse
  • surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The mesh debate : transvaginal anterior anchored mesh should not be abandoned'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this