[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.148.181. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 164
Citations 0
Invited Commentary
November 30, 2016

Mesh—Is Less More?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
  • 2Division of Surgical Oncology, Colorectal and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
  • 3Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA Surg. Published online November 30, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4201

Due to safety concerns, the US Food and Drug Administration has placed a warning on the use of transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.1 Studies like the one by Chughtai et al2 in this issue of JAMA Surgery are important because they provide important information regarding the incidence and timing of complications. Compared with other studies, their work is unique for 2 reasons. First, it focuses on clinically important mesh complications (those that require an intervention as opposed to asymptomatic erosions). Second, it includes a statewide database, which minimizes underreporting that occurs when patients change clinicians secondary to perceived complications.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×