The Treatment of Urinary Stress Incontinence by The Implantation of a Tantalum Plate

Goldberger, Morris A.; Davids, Arthur M.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(16)39659-4

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…FOR the cure of stress incontinence a metal or synthetic prosthesis has been placed under the vesicourethral junction. Goldberger and Davids (1947) used tantalum, Pecherstorfer (1953) and Palmrich and Froewis (1954) plexiglass, Marsalek (1955) d o n , and Kraatz (1954) perlon net. However, these prostheses, fixed under the urethra or to the lower edge of the pubic arch, were often expelled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Stress Incontinence by a Fibrin Bioplast

Horn

Kover

Marton³

1975

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Stress Incontinence by a Fibrin Bioplast

Horn

Kover

Marton³

1975

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first prosthetic material used in pelvic floor surgery, in a 1947 case series, was a tantalum plate implanted transvaginally to treat SUI 39 . The underlying theory was to induce fibrosis and form a fixed plane at the posterior part of the proximal urethra 39 . The same material was then implanted transvaginally to treat cystoceles in an effort to reduce recurrence after surgery 40 .…”

Section: [H1] the Evolution Of Surgical Meshmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same material was then implanted transvaginally to treat cystoceles in an effort to reduce recurrence after surgery 40 . Exposure of the tantalum mesh was reported in 4 out of 10 patients within 6 18 months indicating that tantalum is not suitable for use in the pelvic floor 39 .…”

Section: [H1] the Evolution Of Surgical Meshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaginal meshes used in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have produced highly variable outcomes causing life-changing complications in some patients while providing others with effective, minimally invasive treatments. The issue surrounding the risk:benefit ratio when using the vaginal meshes is complex in which a combination of several factors, including the inherent incompatibility of the mesh material with some applications in pelvic reconstructive surgeries and the lack of appropriate regulatory approval processes at the time of premarket clearance of these products , have contributed to occurrence of complications caused by vaginal mesh. Surgical mesh used in hernia repair has evolved over many years from metal implants to knitted polymer meshes that were adopted for use in the pelvic floor for treatment of POP and SUI. The evolution of the material and textile properties of the surgical mesh was guided by clinical feedback from hernia repair procedures, which were also being modified to obtain the best outcomes with use of the mesh. Current evidence shows how surgical mesh fails biomechanically when used in pelvic floor and materials with improved performance can be developed using modern material processing and tissue engineering techniques. [H1] IntroductionVaginal meshes that are currently used in the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can result in life-changing complications in some women who have vaginal mesh implants 1 . These adverse outcomes are now considered a major public health problem; New Zealand becoming the first country in the world to ban the use of transvaginal POP mesh products while still allowing transvaginal SUI meshes (except minislings) in December 2017 2 . In the UK, two public enquiries performed by the Scottish (in 2015) 3 and English (in 2017) 4 governments, in part, as a result of pressure from patient groups led to suspension of vaginal mesh products, both for SUI and POP, from July 2018 onwards 5 . The newest guidance by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommends that retropubic sling materials can be offered to women with SUI if nonsurgical management has failed 6 . In response, the British Society of Urogynaecologists expressed strong disagreement with the decision to suspend the use of vaginal mesh for SUI, but not POP, stating that this decision would deprive many women of an effective and safe treatment option as demonstrated by level I evidence 7 8 . Mesh manufacturers are currently facing lawsuits in the USA and Europe 9 . The issue with mesh repairs for SUI and POP is complex, as the vaginal mesh is implanted in the female pelvic floor in several different ways with very different outcomes in efficacy and complication outcomes. When used as a tape to treat SUI, many patients are effectively cured with the benefits outweighing the risks 10,11 , whereas when used for transvaginal POP repair, complications are more frequent 12 with...

show abstract