Article

Evidence-based Medicine for Polypropylene Mesh Use Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Prolapse Repair REPLY

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Urology (Impact Factor: 2.13). 11/2011; 79(1):12-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.1438
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A review of the current medical literature for the use of polypropylene (PP) mesh for vaginally performed prolapse repair, including only those studies reporting prospective, randomized, controlled trials compared with native tissue repairs was undertaken. Five full manuscript publications and 4 studies still in abstract form were all consistent with PP mesh producing better anatomical results for cystocele repair, but when functional results in terms of the patient's quality of life are considered, no significant difference is found between PP mesh and native tissue repairs. PP mesh use results in better anatomical results in the short term but at a cost of repeated surgeries because of erosions and other complications. Patients do not recognize any added benefit from the use of these prostheses in their daily lives.

0 Followers
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When appropriately performed, hysterectomy most often contributes substantially to quality of life. Postoperative morbidity is minimal, in particular after minimally invasive surgery. In a minority of women, pain during intercourse is one of the more long-lasting sequelae of the procedure. Complete evaluation and treatment of this complication requires a thorough understanding of the status and function of neighboring organ systems and structures (urinary system, gastrointestinal tract, and pelvic and hip muscle groups). Successful resolution of dyspareunia often may be facilitated with review of the patient's previous degree of comfort during sex and the nature of her relationship with her partner. Repeat surgery is needed in a small minority of patients. (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of AAGL.
    Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 07/2014; 21(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2014.02.008 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To compare short-term outcomes between prolapse repairs with and without mesh using a national data set. Mesh use in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse has gained wide popularity. However, mesh complications have increased concomitantly with its use. Methods Public Use File data were obtained for a 5% random national sample of female Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. Women who underwent prolapse surgery were identified using Current Procedural Terminology Coding System, Fourth Edition (CPT-4) codes. Because the code for mesh placement was effected in 2005, we separated patients into 3 cohorts as follows: those who underwent prolapse repairs from 1999 to 2000 (presumably without mesh), those who underwent repairs from 2007 to 2008 (presumably without mesh), and those with mesh (based on CPT-4 code 57267) from 2007 to 2008. One-year outcomes were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis and procedure codes and CPT-4 procedure codes. Results A total of 9180 prolapse repairs without mesh were performed from 1999 to 2000, 7729 without mesh from 2007 to 2008, and 1804 prolapse repairs with mesh from 2007 to 2008. Prolapse reoperation within 1 year of surgery was higher in nonmesh vs mesh cohorts (6%-7% vs 4%, P <.02). Mesh removal rates were higher in mesh vs nonmesh group (4% vs 0%-1%, P <.001). Mesh use was associated with more dyspareunia, mesh-related complications, and urinary retention, even when controlling for concomitant sling. Conclusion Mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence was associated with a small decrease in early reoperation for prolapse. This decrease came at the expense of increased rates of pelvic pain, retention, mesh-related complications, and mesh removal.
    Urology 04/2014; 83(4):768–773. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.072 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : To describe trends in and predictors of surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair and to estimate the influence of safety advisories on mesh use. : Analysis of women aged 18 years and older recorded in a health care quality and resource utilization database who underwent POP repair from 2000 to 2010, identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes, and stratified by mesh use. Odds ratios were calculated with adjustments for patient, physician, and hospital-level characteristics. : Among 273,275 women in the cohort, 64,968 (23.8%) underwent a mesh-augmented repair. Concurrent incontinence surgery was a strong predictor of mesh use (odds ratio [OR] 9.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.70-10.21). Mesh use increased from 7.9% in 2000 to a peak of 32.1% in 2006, and declined slightly to 27.5% in 2010. Among women without incontinence, mesh use increased from 3.3% in 2000 to 13.5% in 2006, and remained stable at 12.8% in 2010. Intermediate-volume (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.44-1.62) and high-volume (OR 2.74; 95% CI 2.58-2.92) surgeons were more likely to use mesh than low-volume surgeons. Compared with women who underwent operation by gynecologists, those treated by urologists were more than three times more likely to undergo mesh-augmented prolapse repair (OR 3.36; 95% CI 3.09-3.66). Black women were 27% less likely to undergo mesh repair (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.66-0.82). : Mesh-augmented prolapse repairs increased substantially over the past decade, and this increase was most pronounced in the years before the publication of safety advisories. Physician specialty and surgical volume are important factors underlying mesh use. Additional measures must ensure evidence-based use of mesh for pelvic reconstruction. : II.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 11/2012; 120(5):1105-15. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31826ebcc2 · 4.37 Impact Factor