Literature DB >> 24126300

Evaluation and management of complications from synthetic mesh after pelvic reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study.

Sara Abbott1, Cecile A Unger1, Janelle M Evans2, Karl Jallad3, Kevita Mishra4, Mickey M Karram2, Cheryl B Iglesia3, Charles R Rardin4, Matthew D Barber5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the evaluation and management of synthetic mesh-related complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of women who attended 4 US tertiary referral centers for evaluation of mesh-related complications after surgery for SUI and/or POP from January 2006 to December 2010. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were abstracted from the medical record, and complications were classified according to the Expanded Accordion Severity Classification.
RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven patients sought management of synthetic mesh-related complications over the study period. Index surgeries were performed for the following indications: SUI (sling only), 49.9%; POP (transvaginal mesh [TVM] or sacrocolpopexy only), 25.6%; and SUI + POP (sling + TVM or sacrocolpopexy), 24.2%. Median time to evaluation was 5.8 months (range, 0-65.2). Thirty percent of the patients had dyspareunia; 42.7% of the patients had mesh erosion; and 34.6% of the patients had pelvic pain. Seventy-seven percent of the patients had a grade 3 or 4 (severe) complication. Patients with TVM or sacrocolpopexy were more likely to have mesh erosion and vaginal symptoms compared with sling only. The median number of treatments for mesh complications was 2 (range, 1-9); 60% of the women required ≥2 interventions. Initial treatment intervention was surgical for 49% of subjects. Of those treatments that initially were managed nonsurgically, 59.3% went on to surgical intervention.
CONCLUSION: Most of the women who seek management of synthetic mesh complication after POP or SUI surgery have severe complications that require surgical intervention; a significant proportion require >1 surgical procedure. The pattern of complaints differs by index procedure.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mesh excision; mesh-related complication; sling; synthetic mesh

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24126300     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  31 in total

1.  Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).

Authors:  K Baeßler; T Aigmüller; S Albrich; C Anthuber; D Finas; T Fink; C Fünfgeld; B Gabriel; U Henscher; F H Hetzer; M Hübner; B Junginger; K Jundt; S Kropshofer; A Kuhn; L Logé; G Nauman; U Peschers; T Pfiffer; O Schwandner; A Strauss; R Tunn; V Viereck
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse.

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

Review 3.  Mesh Excision: Is Total Mesh Excision Necessary?

Authors:  Gillian F Wolff; J Christian Winters; Ryan M Krlin
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  [Complications associated with plastic meshes and slings. A situation like in the US?].

Authors:  E Petri
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  A novel approach to mesh revision after sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Melissa L Dawson; Rinko Rebecca; Nima M Shah; Kristene E Whitmore
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2016

6.  Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Sophie Warembourg; Majd Labaki; Renaud de Tayrac; Pierre Costa; Brigitte Fatton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 7.  Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Authors:  Abigail A Ford; Lynne Rogerson; June D Cody; Patricia Aluko; Joseph A Ogah
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-31

8.  Functional outcomes of synthetic tape and mesh revision surgeries: a monocentric experience.

Authors:  Salima Ismail; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Christine Reus; Jérémy Cohen; Thomas Seisen; Véronique Phé
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse.

Authors:  Vani Dandolu; Megumi Akiyama; Gayle Allenback; Prathamesh Pathak
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery.

Authors:  Jerry G Blaivas; Rajveer S Purohit; Matthew S Benedon; Gabriel Mekel; Michael Stern; Mubashir Billah; Kola Olugbade; Robert Bendavid; Vladimir Iakovlev
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.