Stephen T Jeffery1, Kendall Brouard. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Groote Schuur Hospital and University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Cape Town, 7595, South Africa, stjeffery@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the extent and severity of the post-operative complications associated with the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit. METHODS: This is a descriptive analysis of 23 consecutive women who had a prolapse repair with either an anterior (n = 19) or posterior (n = 4) Pinnacle kit. The clinical records of all these patients were available for analysis. Pre-operative data and intra-operative complications were noted. All post-operative complications and repeat surgical interventions were recorded. In addition to pelvic floor symptoms, we looked specifically for pelvic pain and mesh contraction, exposure, extrusion or erosion. Complications were classified according to the joint IUGA/ICS system. RESULTS: Seventy percent (n = 16) of our cohort experienced at least one complication. All, except one, were following an anterior Pinnacle. 10 patients (43 %) had a tender vaginal mesh prominence, including a contraction band anteriorly or at the vaginal apex. Six (26 %) complained of associated buttock, groin or vaginal pain, while the tenderness was only detected during vaginal examination in 4 (16 %) patients. Three (13 %) patients required vaginal mesh excision for severe pain and one required a second procedure. Three patients (13 %) had vaginal mesh exposure and 8 (35 %) developed de novo stress incontinence. Two patients (8 %) developed symptomatic recurrent prolapse, one following mesh excision owing to large mesh exposure. Another patient had an anterior compartment prolapse above and below a tender contracted anterior vaginal mesh. CONCLUSIONS: The Pinnacle kit was associated with a high incidence of post-operative complications in this small series.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the extent and severity of the post-operative complications associated with the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit. METHODS: This is a descriptive analysis of 23 consecutive women who had a prolapse repair with either an anterior (n = 19) or posterior (n = 4) Pinnacle kit. The clinical records of all these patients were available for analysis. Pre-operative data and intra-operative complications were noted. All post-operative complications and repeat surgical interventions were recorded. In addition to pelvic floor symptoms, we looked specifically for pelvic pain and mesh contraction, exposure, extrusion or erosion. Complications were classified according to the joint IUGA/ICS system. RESULTS: Seventy percent (n = 16) of our cohort experienced at least one complication. All, except one, were following an anterior Pinnacle. 10 patients (43 %) had a tender vaginal mesh prominence, including a contraction band anteriorly or at the vaginal apex. Six (26 %) complained of associated buttock, groin or vaginal pain, while the tenderness was only detected during vaginal examination in 4 (16 %) patients. Three (13 %) patients required vaginal mesh excision for severe pain and one required a second procedure. Three patients (13 %) had vaginal mesh exposure and 8 (35 %) developed de novo stress incontinence. Two patients (8 %) developed symptomatic recurrent prolapse, one following mesh excision owing to large mesh exposure. Another patient had an anterior compartment prolapse above and below a tender contracted anterior vaginal mesh. CONCLUSIONS: The Pinnacle kit was associated with a high incidence of post-operative complications in this small series.
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Michel Cosson; G Willy Davila; Jan Deprest; Peter L Dwyer; Brigitte Fatton; Ervin Kocjancic; Joseph Lee; Chris Maher; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer; Ralph J Webb Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Manhan K Vu; Juraj Letko; Kelly Jirschele; Adam Gafni-Kane; Aimee Nguyen; Honyan Du; Roger P Goldberg Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Matthew J Aungst; Evan B Friedman; Walter S von Pechmann; Nicolette S Horbach; Jeffrey A Welgoss Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Mélanie Cayrac; Vincent Letouzey; Idir Ouzaid; Pierre Costa; Vincent Delmas; Renaud de Tayrac Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 2.894