OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on the rates of pelvic organ prolapse procedures utilizing mesh. The objective of this study was to examine trends in vaginal mesh prolapse procedures (VMs), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) from 2005 to 2010. STUDY DESIGN: We utilized deidentified, adjudicated health care claims data from across the United States from 2005 to 2010. Among women 18 years old or older, we identified all mesh prolapse procedures based on current procedural terminology codes (57267 for VM, 57280 for ASC, and 57425 for MISC). VM procedures included all vaginal prolapse surgeries in which mesh was placed, whether in the anterior, apical, or posterior compartment. We estimated rates per 100,000 person-years (100,000 py) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: During 78.5 million person-years of observation, we identified 60,152 mesh prolapse procedures, for a rate of 76.0 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 73.6-78.5). Overall, VMs comprised 74.9% of these surgeries for an overall rate of 56.9 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 55.0-58.9). Rates of ASC and MISC were considerably lower at 12.0 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 11.6-12.5) and 9.5 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 9.2-9.9), respectively. Among sacrocolpopexies, ASC was more common than MISC in 2005-2007; however, since 2007, the rate of MISC has increased, whereas the rate of ASC has decreased. Regarding trends by age, VM was considerably more common than sacrocolpopexies at all ages, and ASC was more common than MISC in women older than 50 years. CONCLUSION: From 2005 to 2010, the rate of mesh prolapse procedures has increased, with vaginal mesh surgeries constituting the vast majority.
OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on the rates of pelvic organ prolapse procedures utilizing mesh. The objective of this study was to examine trends in vaginal mesh prolapse procedures (VMs), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) from 2005 to 2010. STUDY DESIGN: We utilized deidentified, adjudicated health care claims data from across the United States from 2005 to 2010. Among women 18 years old or older, we identified all mesh prolapse procedures based on current procedural terminology codes (57267 for VM, 57280 for ASC, and 57425 for MISC). VM procedures included all vaginal prolapse surgeries in which mesh was placed, whether in the anterior, apical, or posterior compartment. We estimated rates per 100,000 person-years (100,000 py) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: During 78.5 million person-years of observation, we identified 60,152 mesh prolapse procedures, for a rate of 76.0 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 73.6-78.5). Overall, VMs comprised 74.9% of these surgeries for an overall rate of 56.9 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 55.0-58.9). Rates of ASC and MISC were considerably lower at 12.0 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 11.6-12.5) and 9.5 per 100,000 py (95% CI, 9.2-9.9), respectively. Among sacrocolpopexies, ASC was more common than MISC in 2005-2007; however, since 2007, the rate of MISC has increased, whereas the rate of ASC has decreased. Regarding trends by age, VM was considerably more common than sacrocolpopexies at all ages, and ASC was more common than MISC in women older than 50 years. CONCLUSION: From 2005 to 2010, the rate of mesh prolapse procedures has increased, with vaginal mesh surgeries constituting the vast majority.
Authors: Blake C Osmundsen; Amanda Clark; Crystal Goldsmith; Kerrie Adams; Mary Anna Denman; Renee Edwards; William Thomas Gregory Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Patrick A Nosti; Joye K Lowman; Terrell W Zollinger; Douglass S Hale; Patrick J Woodman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09-20 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Olga Ramm; Jonathan L Gleason; Saya Segal; Danielle D Antosh; Kimberly S Kenton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sarah L Bradley; Alison C Weidner; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Mihir P Gandhi; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Kari Nieminen; Reijo Hiltunen; Teuvo Takala; Eila Heiskanen; Mauri Merikari; Kirsti Niemi; Pentti K Heinonen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jeanette S Brown; L Elaine Waetjen; Leslee L Subak; David H Thom; Stephen Van den Eeden; Eric Vittinghoff Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Geoffrey W Cundiff; Edward Varner; Anthony G Visco; Halina M Zyczynski; Charles W Nager; Peggy A Norton; Joseph Schaffer; Morton B Brown; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Brian J Linder; Mallika Anand; Amy L Weaver; Joshua L Woelk; Christopher J Klingele; Emanuel C Trabuco; John A Occhino; John B Gebhart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Aqsa A Khan; Karyn S Eilber; Erin Chong; Stephanie Histed; Ning Wu; Chris L Pashos; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urology Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alexis A Dieter; Marcella G Willis-Gray; Alison C Weidner; Anthony G Visco; Evan R Myers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kimberly Kenton; Elizabeth R Mueller; Christopher Tarney; Catherine Bresee; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Teresa Mascarenhas; Miguel Mascarenhas-Saraiva; Amélia Ricon-Ferraz; Paula Nogueira; Fernando Lopes; Alberto Freitas Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-08-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; Carolyn W Swenson; Neil S Kamdar; Emily K Kobernik; John O L DeLancey; Brahmajee Nallamothu; Daniel M Morgan Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Bryan N Brown; Deepa Mani; Alexis L Nolfi; Rui Liang; Steven D Abramowitch; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 8.661