Stephen B Young1, Joseph I Schaffer, Monica L Lucero, Allison E Howard. 1. From the *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA; and †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate the practice patterns of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) members and guests regarding the use of synthetic mesh in vaginal prolapse repair. METHODS: : A 26-item questionnaire regarding synthetic mesh use in vaginal prolapse repair was placed on the desks of those SGS attendees present at the fourth scientific session of the 2008 annual scientific meeting. Voluntary participation was requested and the survey questionnaires were retrieved at the session's conclusion. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation using χ tests were performed with SPSS. RESULTS: : One hundred twenty-eight of the 180 scientific session attendees completed the surveys. Sixty-nine percent (88/128) of the respondents identified themselves as urogynecologists and 45% (83/128) were male. Forty-five percent (58/128) were SGS members. Sixty-six percent (84/128) described their practice setting as academic, 28% (36/128) as community-based, and 6% (8/128) as other. The majority of the urogynecologists, 65% (64/88), used mesh at the time of survey completion versus 40% (8/18) of the obstetrician/gynecologists (P < 0.001). Fifty-nine percent (74/125) respondents were currently using mesh and 11% (14/125) reported using mesh at one time. Fifty-six percent (48/86) used mesh in both primary and recurrent repairs. For anterior repair, 97% (82/86) used mesh; of these, 31% (26/86) used only mesh kits, 33% (28/86) used only free mesh and 33% (28/86) reported using both. For posterior repair, 70% (62/88) used mesh; of these 18% (16/88) used only mesh kits, 26% (23/88) used only free mesh and 26% (23/88) used both. For anterior repair, 84% (71/85) dissected full-thickness and 43% (35/85) plicated connective tissue prior to inserting the mesh. The respondents had excised mesh for indications including: persistent drainage (59%), persistent pain (21%), hispareunia (21%), dyspareunia (16%), and asymptomatic exposure (11%). Fifty percent (44/88) initially managed mesh erosion with estrogen cream whereas 29% (26/88) started with mesh excision. CONCLUSIONS: : This survey suggests that the majority of urogynecologists attending the 34th SGS annual scientific meeting have used vaginal mesh for prolapse repair, and they more commonly used it in the anterior as compared to the posterior compartment. This has occurred in the absence of prospective, controlled, high-quality studies supporting its efficacy and safety. Research is clearly needed in this area.
OBJECTIVE: : To evaluate the practice patterns of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) members and guests regarding the use of synthetic mesh in vaginal prolapse repair. METHODS: : A 26-item questionnaire regarding synthetic mesh use in vaginal prolapse repair was placed on the desks of those SGS attendees present at the fourth scientific session of the 2008 annual scientific meeting. Voluntary participation was requested and the survey questionnaires were retrieved at the session's conclusion. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation using χ tests were performed with SPSS. RESULTS: : One hundred twenty-eight of the 180 scientific session attendees completed the surveys. Sixty-nine percent (88/128) of the respondents identified themselves as urogynecologists and 45% (83/128) were male. Forty-five percent (58/128) were SGS members. Sixty-six percent (84/128) described their practice setting as academic, 28% (36/128) as community-based, and 6% (8/128) as other. The majority of the urogynecologists, 65% (64/88), used mesh at the time of survey completion versus 40% (8/18) of the obstetrician/gynecologists (P < 0.001). Fifty-nine percent (74/125) respondents were currently using mesh and 11% (14/125) reported using mesh at one time. Fifty-six percent (48/86) used mesh in both primary and recurrent repairs. For anterior repair, 97% (82/86) used mesh; of these, 31% (26/86) used only mesh kits, 33% (28/86) used only free mesh and 33% (28/86) reported using both. For posterior repair, 70% (62/88) used mesh; of these 18% (16/88) used only mesh kits, 26% (23/88) used only free mesh and 26% (23/88) used both. For anterior repair, 84% (71/85) dissected full-thickness and 43% (35/85) plicated connective tissue prior to inserting the mesh. The respondents had excised mesh for indications including: persistent drainage (59%), persistent pain (21%), hispareunia (21%), dyspareunia (16%), and asymptomatic exposure (11%). Fifty percent (44/88) initially managed mesh erosion with estrogen cream whereas 29% (26/88) started with mesh excision. CONCLUSIONS: : This survey suggests that the majority of urogynecologists attending the 34th SGS annual scientific meeting have used vaginal mesh for prolapse repair, and they more commonly used it in the anterior as compared to the posterior compartment. This has occurred in the absence of prospective, controlled, high-quality studies supporting its efficacy and safety. Research is clearly needed in this area.