Mesh in POP surgery should be based on the risk of the procedure, not the risk of recurrence.

The still unfolding story of mesh use in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) offers insights into the factors that influence how we interpret evidence in assessing new technology. Our adoption of mesh in prolapse surgery was influenced by a paradigm shift from treating to preventing recurrent prolapse. This shift is largely unsupported by data and fails to account for the added risk associated with mesh use. This commentary explores unconscious factors that influence our interpretation of innovation and proposes a new approach to evaluating new surgical technologies that balances benefit and risk. Counseling patients about treatments using the benefit-risk approach offers a more balanced perspective. Using a formal benefit-risk assessment in the scientific evaluation of treatments will also provide a more balanced approach that supports the scientific process and patients who undergo treatment.