OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the nature and rate of surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of all patients who underwent Prolift mesh repair between January 2005 and January 2009. Patient data were obtained from medical records, and patients were telephoned to check if they had surgery in other hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 600 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, 524 patients (87.3%) were included in the study, with a median follow-up duration of 38 months (range, 15-63). Global reoperation rate was 11.6%. Indications of intervention were surgery for urinary incontinence (6.9%), mesh-related complications (3.6%), or prolapse recurrence (3%). CONCLUSION: The global reoperation rate after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair was 11.6%, with urinary incontinence surgery being the most common indication. Rates of mesh complications and prolapse recurrence are relatively low in an experienced team.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the nature and rate of surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of all patients who underwent Prolift mesh repair between January 2005 and January 2009. Patient data were obtained from medical records, and patients were telephoned to check if they had surgery in other hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 600 consecutive patients were identified. Of these, 524 patients (87.3%) were included in the study, with a median follow-up duration of 38 months (range, 15-63). Global reoperation rate was 11.6%. Indications of intervention were surgery for urinary incontinence (6.9%), mesh-related complications (3.6%), or prolapse recurrence (3%). CONCLUSION: The global reoperation rate after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair was 11.6%, with urinary incontinence surgery being the most common indication. Rates of mesh complications and prolapse recurrence are relatively low in an experienced team.
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sophie Warembourg; Majd Labaki; Renaud de Tayrac; Pierre Costa; Brigitte Fatton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Isuzu Meyer; Gerald McGwin; Thomas A Swain; Mitchell D Alvarez; David R Ellington; Holly E Richter Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.137