Literature DB >> 24081497

Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh.

Laura C Skoczylas1, Lindsay C Turner, Li Wang, Daniel G Winger, Jonathan P Shepherd.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In 2008 and 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released notifications regarding vaginal mesh. In describing prolapse surgery trends over time, we predicted vaginal mesh use would decrease and native tissue repairs would increase.
METHODS: Operative reports were reviewed for all prolapse repairs performed from 2008 to 2011 at our large regional hospital system. The number of each type of prolapse repair was determined per quarter year and expressed as a percentage of all repairs. Surgical trends were examined focusing on changes with respect to the release of two FDA notifications. We used linear regression to analyze surgical trends and chi-square for demographic comparisons.
RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and eleven women underwent 1,385 prolapse procedures. Mean age was 64 ± 12, and 70 % had stage III prolapse. Vaginal mesh procedures declined over time (p = 0.001), comprising 27 % of repairs in early 2008, 15 % at the first FDA notification, 5 % by the second FDA notification, and 2 % at the end of 2011. The percentage of native tissue anterior/posterior repairs (p < 0.001) and apical suspensions (p = 0.007) increased, whereas colpocleisis remained constant (p = 0.475). Despite an overall decrease in open sacral colpopexies (p < 0.001), an initial increase was seen around the first FDA notification. We adopted laparoscopic/robotic techniques around this time, and the percentage of minimally invasive sacral colpopexies steadily increased thereafter (p < 0.001). All sacral colpopexies combined as a group declined over time (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of prolapse continues to evolve. Over a 4-year period encompassing two FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh and the introduction of laparoscopic/robotic techniques, we performed fewer vaginal mesh procedures and more native tissue repairs and minimally invasive sacral colpopexies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24081497      PMCID: PMC4049448          DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2231-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  22 in total

1.  Informed surgical consent for a mesh/graft-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Dennis Miller; Alfredo L Milani; Suzette E Sutherland; Bonnie Navin; Rebecca G Rogers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors: 
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.091

3.  Words of wisdom. Re: FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Firouz Daneshgari
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Tobacco use is a risk factor for mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy.

Authors:  Joye K Lowman; Patrick J Woodman; Patrick A Nosti; Richard C Bump; Colin L Terry; Douglass S Hale
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  G Willy Davila; Kaven Baessler; Michel Cosson; Linda Cardozo
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Risk factors for mesh extrusion after prolapse surgery: a case-control study.

Authors:  Nazanin Ehsani; Mohamed A Ghafar; Danielle D Antosh; Jasmine Tan-Kim; William B Warner; Mamta M Mamik; Heidi W Brown; Christopher P Chung; Saya Segal; Husam Abed; Miles Murphy; Jill C Stolzfus; Stephanie M Molden
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.091

7.  Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Authors:  Caroline Elmér; Christian Falconer; Anders Hallin; Gregor Larsson; Marion Ek; Daniel Altman
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 2.696

9.  Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Michele Jonsson Funk; Autumn L Edenfield; Virginia Pate; Anthony G Visco; Alison C Weidner; Jennifer M Wu
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Risk evaluation of smoking and age on the occurrence of postoperative erosions after transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapses.

Authors:  Francesco Araco; Gianpiero Gravante; Roberto Sorge; Davide De Vita; Emilio Piccione
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-10-10
View more
  13 in total

1.  Efficacy and safety of skeletonized mesh implants for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: 12-month follow-up.

Authors:  Adi Y Weintraub; Menahem Neuman; Yonatan Reuven; Joerg Neymeyer; Naama Marcus-Braun
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Back to the future: vaginal hysterectomy and Campbell uterosacral ligaments suspension for urogenital prolapse.

Authors:  Caroline Pettenati; Florence Cour; Pierre-Olivier Bosset; Titouan Kennel; Adrien Vidart; Thierry Lebret
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Trends in prolapse surgery in England.

Authors:  Martino Maria Zacche; Sambit Mukhopadhyay; Ilias Giarenis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Pelvic organ prolapse surgical management in Portugal and FDA safety communication have an impact on vaginal mesh.

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

6.  Rate of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery Among Privately Insured Women in the United States, 2010-2013.

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

Review 7.  Sacrocolpopexy: Surgical Technique, Outcomes, and Complications.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Takacs; Karl J Kreder
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Lindsay C Turner; Erin S Lavelle; Jonathan P Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 9.  Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Alexis A Dieter; Maggie F Wilkins; Jennifer M Wu
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 10.  Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function.

Authors:  Brigitte Fatton; Renaud de Tayrac; Vincent Letouzey; Stéphanie Huberlant
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.