Cited by 46Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsHernia repair and managementUterine Myomas and Treatments

Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist

Open access
Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association·2020·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

The scientific approach to categorizing mesh complications and optimal methods to address them have been complicated by the rapid proliferation and evolution of materials and techniques that have been used over the past 20 years in surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders. In addition, terminology used to diagnose and categorize mesh complications and the descriptions of surgical procedures to manage them have been adopted inconsistently, further hampering the development of a collective experience with a standardized lexicon. Finally, much of the high-quality data on management of mesh complications is based on materials that are rarely used or not commercially available today.Women experiencing mesh complications need to be heard and should have access to resources and providers who are most able to help. Many women require multiple procedures to address their mesh complications, and for some of these patients, relief is incomplete. We should strive to optimize the treatment at the initial diagnosis of a mesh-related complication.This Position Statement has 4 goals:1. Using the best and most relevant evidence available, provide guidance for the FPMRS subspecialist caring for patients who may be experiencing mesh complications2: Provide an algorithm outlining treatment choices for patients with mesh-related complications that can be used as a platform for shared decision making in the treatment of these complications3: Identify and prioritize gaps in evidence concerning specific mesh complications and their treatments4: Identify provider and health facility characteristics that may optimize the outcomes of treatments for these complications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-020-04248-x

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. International Urogynecological Association; International Continence Society; Joint IUGA/ICS Working Group on Complications Terminology. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/ International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and clas- sification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. NeurourolUrodyn. 2011;30(1):2-12.
  2. Scottish Independent Review of the use, safety and efficacy of transvaginal mesh implants in the treatment of stress urinary incon- tinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women. Available at: https:// www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-independent-review-use- safety-efficacy-transvaginal-mesh-implants-treatment- 9781786528711/. Accessed 2 Sept 2019.
  3. Kohli N, Walsh PM, Roat TW, et al. Mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:999-1004.
  4. Mattox TF, Stanford EJ, Varner E. Infected abdominal sacrocolpopexies: diagnosis and treatment. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15:319-23.
  5. NICE guidance-urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management: © NICE (2019) urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. BJU Int. 2019;123(5):777-803.
  6. 11th Edition of Educational Objectivs: Core Curriculum in Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ ACOG-Departments/CREOG/CREOG-Search/CREOG-11th- Edition-of-Educational-Objectives?IsMobileSet=false. Accessed May 6, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Developed by the Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2020-02-28
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
679-694
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W4205174264
Cited by
46
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brown University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
mesh complications, pelvic floor reconstruction, pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor dysfunction, mesh removal, shared decision-making, treatment algorithm, terminology standardization, patient-centered care
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Surgical Mesh, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review