[Implants for genital prolapse : Contra mesh surgery]

Alloplastic transvaginal meshes have become very popular in the surgery of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) as did alloplastic suburethral slings in female stress incontinence surgery, but without adequate supporting data. The simplicity of the mesh procedure facilitates its propagation with acceptance of higher revision and complication rates. Since attending physicians do more and more prolapse surgeries without practicing or teaching alternative techniques, expertise in these alternatives, which might be very useful in cases of recurrence, persistence or complications, is permanently lost. It is doubtful that proper and detailed information about alternatives, risks, and benefits of transvaginal alloplastic meshes is provided to every single prolapse patient according to the recommendations of the German POP guidelines, since the number of implanted meshes exceeds the number of properly indicated mesh candidates by far. Although there is no dissent internationally about the available mesh data, thousands of lawsuits in the USA, insolvency of companies due to claims for compensation and unambiguous warnings from foreign urological societies leave German urogynecologists still unimpressed. The existing literature in pelvic organ prolapse exclusively focusses on POP stage and improvement of that stage with surgical therapy. Instead, typical prolapse symptoms should trigger therapy and improvement of these symptoms should be the utmost treatment goal. It is strongly recommended for liability reasons to obtain specific written informed consent.