Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026
Transvaginal Mesh Insertion in the Ovine Model
Published on: July 27, 2017
No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Maryse Larouche1, Roxana Geoffrion2, Jens-Erik Walter1
1Montréal, QC.
Objective:
This guideline reviews the evidence related to the risks and benefits of using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repairs in order to update recommendations initially made in 2011.
Intended Users:
Gynaecologists, residents, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Target Population:
Adult women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse considering surgery and those who have previously undergone transvaginal mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Options:
The discussion relates to transvaginal mesh procedures compared with other surgical options for pelvic organ prolapse (mainly about vaginal native tissue repairs and minimally about other alternatives such as biological and absorbable vaginal mesh and abdominally placed surgical mesh).
Outcomes:
The outcomes of interest are objective and subjective success rates and intraoperative and postoperative complications, such as adjacent organ injury (urinary, gastrointestinal), infection, hematoma/bleeding, vaginal mesh exposure, persistent pain, dyspareunia, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation.
Evidence:
PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Database, and EMBASE were searched using the key words pelvic organ prolapse/surgery*, prolapse/surgery*, surgical mesh, surgical mesh*/adverse effects, transvaginal mesh, and pelvic organ prolapse.
Results:
were restricted to English or French language and human research. Articles obtained through this search strategy were included until the end of June 2016. Pertinent new studies were added up to September 2016. Grey literature was not searched. Clinical practice guidelines and guidelines of specialty societies were reviewed. Systematic reviews were included when available. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included when evidence for the outcome of interest or in the target population was not available from systematic reviews. New studies not yet included in systematic reviews were also included. Only publications with study groups larger than 20 individuals were selected because this criterion was used in the largest meta-analysis referenced in this guideline. A total of 1470 studies were obtained; after selecting only applicable studies and excluding duplicates, 68 manuscripts were reviewed and included.
Values:
The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors and members of the Urogynaecology Committee. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology framework. The Summary of Findings is available upon request.
Benefits, Harms, And/Or Costs:
It is expected that this guideline will benefit women with pelvic organ prolapse by ensuring that health care providers are aware of outcomes related to transvaginal mesh procedures and steps in the management of related complications. This should guide patient-informed consent before such procedures are undertaken. The benefits clearly outweigh the potential harms or costs of implementation of this guideline, although no direct harms or costs are identified.
Guideline Update:
Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations.
Summary Statements:
RECOMMENDATIONS.
