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
 · 
102 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Native tissue repair of the anterior vaginal wall was thought to have a poor success rate based on anatomic outcome. This high rate of anatomic failure was often quoted as the underlying reason for performing mesh-augmented prolapse repair. The purpose of this article is to review the outcomes of native tissue repair of anterior vaginal prolapse repair in the mesh era. Success in pelvic organ prolapse surgery has been redefined. The contemporary definition of success includes the absence of symptoms associated with a vaginal bulge, which correlates best with a patient's perception of success. When this concept is applied to 12 randomized controlled trials that compared native tissue anterior colporrhaphy and mesh repairs for anterior vaginal wall prolapse, it is apparent that although mesh repair had superior anatomic success (38-93 vs. 27-71%), both mesh and native tissue repair had excellent rates of symptomatic success (75-96 and 62-100%, respectively). Taken together, the overall reoperation rate for native tissue repair was 5.0% compared with 9.0% for mesh-augmented repair. Although anatomic stage 0 results are not achieved in many cases, patients do experience symptomatic relief and improvement in their quality of life, only seeking retreatment in a small proportion of cases with anatomic recurrence. Thus, the definition of success must include subjective symptom-based outcome in addition to anatomic outcome. In addition, the degree of later complications, including additional surgeries, must also be taken into account when defining success based on patient satisfaction.
    Current opinion in urology 05/2012; 22(4):265-70. DOI:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835459bb · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic meshes has become common. Among possible complications, mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment. METHODS: A total of 200 patients with POP > stage I were randomized either to a conventional or a partially absorbable mesh. Exposure rates were observed after 3, 12, and 36 months and correlated to mesh material, patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and treatment centers. Furthermore, management of mesh exposure, satisfaction with surgery, and postoperative pain were evaluated. RESULTS: At all follow-up intervals mesh exposure rate was smaller in the group of the partially absorbable mesh (3 months PP 11.3 % vs PA 3.2 %, p = 0.0492; 12 months 6.6 % vs 6.3 %; 36 months 7.5 % vs 3.4 %). Over the course of time, mesh exposure was observed in 27 patients, with surgical intervention necessary in 11 patients. The rate of recurrent POP was higher (p > 0.05) in patients with the partially absorbable mesh. The majority of patients were fully satisfied with the operation (52.8 %) and had no pelvic floor pain (67.5 %). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, randomized trial with a long-term follow-up there was a low exposure rate in both treatment groups with a trend toward fewer exposures in the group of the partially absorbable mesh.
    International Urogynecology Journal 08/2012; 24(5). DOI:10.1007/s00192-012-1929-2 · 2.16 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
Show more