Ann Coloproctol.  2017 Apr;33(2):46-51. 10.3393/ac.2017.33.2.46.

Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review

• Balla A
• Quaresima
• Smolarek S
• Shalaby M
• Missori G
• Sileri P

• KMID: 2400027
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2017.33.2.46

Abstract

PURPOSE
This review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.
METHODS
A systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.
RESULTS
Eight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.
CONCLUSION
The incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.

Keyword

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy; Erosion mesh-related; Synthetic mesh; Biological mesh

MeSH Terms

Diagnosis
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Mortality