{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: To mesh or not mesh "apical prolapse," that is the question!
{Author}: Lin FC;Gilleran JP;Powell CR;Atiemo HO;
{Journal}: Neurourol Urodyn
{Volume}: 43
{Issue}: 7
{Year}: 2024 Sep 16
{Factor}: 2.367
{DOI}: 10.1002/nau.25469
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) involves both nonsurgical and surgical management. Views on best surgical approach for apical prolapse is an evolving field based on recent evidence and events related to transvaginal mesh.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>At the 97th Annual Meeting of the North Central Section of the American Urological Association (Scottsdale, AZ, USA), this topic was discussed and debated. The following article summarizes the concepts presented that day as well as the interactive debate with three perspectives on apical prolapse surgeries. The authors were asked to support their approach in various scenarios including: extremes of age, prior hysterectomy and intact uterus, desire to avoid mesh, sexual activity, and presence of comorbidities.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Surgical approaches for POP have evolved and is a popular topic for debate, particularly when discussing apical prolapse. Transvaginal native tissue repairs remain the mainstay of POP surgeries; however, transabdominal approaches continue to evolve. Use of interposition material, such as synthetic polypropylene mesh, is the standard when performing an abdominal sacrocolpopexy, however, use of autologous fascia can be considered. Small series have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of autologous fascia-based repairs; however, larger studies with longer follow-up are needed.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>There are a variety of surgical strategies to repair POP. Ultimate decision making on specific surgeries should be determined by patient preference and goals after appropriate counseling on all options.